<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_1934242</id>
	<title>N.Y. AG Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257364200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has  <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140330/N.Y.\_attorney\_general\_files\_antitrust\_lawsuit\_against\_Intel">filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel</a>, alleging that the company engaged in a 'systematic campaign' of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly. Cuomo's lawsuit alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors. Intel gave computer makers payments totaling billions of dollars in exchange for the exclusive agreements, and the company threatened to cut off payments to computer makers or fund their competitors when they worked with other microprocessor makers, the lawsuit alleged. Cuomo's lawsuit comes less than two weeks after news reports that the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139844/Report\_U.S.\_regulators\_to\_file\_complaint\_against\_Intel">FTC is considering filing a formal complaint against Intel</a>. 'Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,' Cuomo said in a statement. 'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel , alleging that the company engaged in a 'systematic campaign ' of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly .
Cuomo 's lawsuit alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors .
Intel gave computer makers payments totaling billions of dollars in exchange for the exclusive agreements , and the company threatened to cut off payments to computer makers or fund their competitors when they worked with other microprocessor makers , the lawsuit alleged .
Cuomo 's lawsuit comes less than two weeks after news reports that the FTC is considering filing a formal complaint against Intel .
'Rather than compete fairly , Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market, ' Cuomo said in a statement .
'Intel 's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors , but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices .
These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has  filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel, alleging that the company engaged in a 'systematic campaign' of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly.
Cuomo's lawsuit alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors.
Intel gave computer makers payments totaling billions of dollars in exchange for the exclusive agreements, and the company threatened to cut off payments to computer makers or fund their competitors when they worked with other microprocessor makers, the lawsuit alleged.
Cuomo's lawsuit comes less than two weeks after news reports that the FTC is considering filing a formal complaint against Intel.
'Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,' Cuomo said in a statement.
'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.
These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984550</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1256980500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...what - they'll slap Intel on the wrist <i>twice</i>?</p><p>(assuming they're actually found liable/guilty/whatever)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...what - they 'll slap Intel on the wrist twice ?
( assuming they 're actually found liable/guilty/whatever )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what - they'll slap Intel on the wrist twice?
(assuming they're actually found liable/guilty/whatever)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29996388</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257444120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They won't. Micro$oft is the perfect target for antitrust regulation. They are raping just every law made in every country about it. They were convicted by the highest instances in the world: US supreme court ( their own country ) and the EU.</p><p>That didn't even slow them down. They are still at it, and aren't even bothering to covering it up anymore.</p><p>What do you think the DoJ can do?</p><p>Answer: A show of doing something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't .
Micro $ oft is the perfect target for antitrust regulation .
They are raping just every law made in every country about it .
They were convicted by the highest instances in the world : US supreme court ( their own country ) and the EU.That did n't even slow them down .
They are still at it , and are n't even bothering to covering it up anymore.What do you think the DoJ can do ? Answer : A show of doing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't.
Micro$oft is the perfect target for antitrust regulation.
They are raping just every law made in every country about it.
They were convicted by the highest instances in the world: US supreme court ( their own country ) and the EU.That didn't even slow them down.
They are still at it, and aren't even bothering to covering it up anymore.What do you think the DoJ can do?Answer: A show of doing something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984224</id>
	<title>Campaign season already?</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257022680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we have an election yesterday and already Cuomo is running for Governor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we have an election yesterday and already Cuomo is running for Governor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we have an election yesterday and already Cuomo is running for Governor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985028</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>mcmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1256982120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off-topic and not for nothing...</p><p>For all the acronym- and jargon-laden summaries which barely qualify as English, and inevitable posts of 'WTF?', and the even more inevitable follow ups of 'Google, ya wanker," is it really necessary to qualify Intel as a "microprocessor maker"?</p><p>Anyone here not know what Intel is or what it does?  Anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off-topic and not for nothing...For all the acronym- and jargon-laden summaries which barely qualify as English , and inevitable posts of 'WTF ?
' , and the even more inevitable follow ups of 'Google , ya wanker , " is it really necessary to qualify Intel as a " microprocessor maker " ? Anyone here not know what Intel is or what it does ?
Anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off-topic and not for nothing...For all the acronym- and jargon-laden summaries which barely qualify as English, and inevitable posts of 'WTF?
', and the even more inevitable follow ups of 'Google, ya wanker," is it really necessary to qualify Intel as a "microprocessor maker"?Anyone here not know what Intel is or what it does?
Anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984646</id>
	<title>Who gets the money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides the lawyers of course..  If Intel really did "hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices", then shouldn't everyone be getting a settlement?  I have a couple of Intel processors, and I'm still waiting from my cheque in the mail from the last time they got sued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the lawyers of course.. If Intel really did " hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices " , then should n't everyone be getting a settlement ?
I have a couple of Intel processors , and I 'm still waiting from my cheque in the mail from the last time they got sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the lawyers of course..  If Intel really did "hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices", then shouldn't everyone be getting a settlement?
I have a couple of Intel processors, and I'm still waiting from my cheque in the mail from the last time they got sued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29997054</id>
	<title>South Korea already did it.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and convicted intel. what took america so long ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and convicted intel .
what took america so long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and convicted intel.
what took america so long ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985290</id>
	<title>Please state Libertarian position?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to know what the Libertarian position is on monopolistic competition? <br>
I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine. The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice. Any advice?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to know what the Libertarian position is on monopolistic competition ?
I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one 's money , and it follows that paying someone ( some people call it bribery ) to persuade them to a position is fine .
The problem is i have n't studied this and , not being an expert , it 's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice .
Any advice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to know what the Libertarian position is on monopolistic competition?
I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine.
The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice.
Any advice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</id>
	<title>I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>surmak</author>
	<datestamp>1256979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this has <i>anything</i> to do with AMD (err Global Foundaries) dropping a few billion on the construction of a plant a few miles from Albany?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this has anything to do with AMD ( err Global Foundaries ) dropping a few billion on the construction of a plant a few miles from Albany ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this has anything to do with AMD (err Global Foundaries) dropping a few billion on the construction of a plant a few miles from Albany?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29992320</id>
	<title>Stupid question...</title>
	<author>FlyHelicopters</author>
	<datestamp>1257415140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But why is it illegal for Intel to sell their processers for less to someone who agrees to use them only, compared to someone who uses Intel and AMD?
<br> <br>
Because Intel is a monopoly?  Hardly, AMD sells plenty of CPUs.
<br> <br>
I'm just trying to understand how anything Intel did is illegal.  I would have been inclined to do exactly what they did, had I been in their shoes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why is it illegal for Intel to sell their processers for less to someone who agrees to use them only , compared to someone who uses Intel and AMD ?
Because Intel is a monopoly ?
Hardly , AMD sells plenty of CPUs .
I 'm just trying to understand how anything Intel did is illegal .
I would have been inclined to do exactly what they did , had I been in their shoes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why is it illegal for Intel to sell their processers for less to someone who agrees to use them only, compared to someone who uses Intel and AMD?
Because Intel is a monopoly?
Hardly, AMD sells plenty of CPUs.
I'm just trying to understand how anything Intel did is illegal.
I would have been inclined to do exactly what they did, had I been in their shoes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29992986</id>
	<title>Thats why I don't buy from them</title>
	<author>paziek</author>
	<datestamp>1257422940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats why I don't buy from them and never will. I don't buy from nVidia either as I see them doing similar. So all my PC are now Phenom + Radeon (old one Athlon), even tho people say, that Intel is performing much better (could be lie?).<br>If every1 would do the same, then we wouldn't even have to do that, since companies would avoid that kind of "competition" like fire or Orbital Ion Canon.<br>How many of you use Intel products? I bet most! Money, money, money!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats why I do n't buy from them and never will .
I do n't buy from nVidia either as I see them doing similar .
So all my PC are now Phenom + Radeon ( old one Athlon ) , even tho people say , that Intel is performing much better ( could be lie ?
) .If every1 would do the same , then we would n't even have to do that , since companies would avoid that kind of " competition " like fire or Orbital Ion Canon.How many of you use Intel products ?
I bet most !
Money , money , money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats why I don't buy from them and never will.
I don't buy from nVidia either as I see them doing similar.
So all my PC are now Phenom + Radeon (old one Athlon), even tho people say, that Intel is performing much better (could be lie?
).If every1 would do the same, then we wouldn't even have to do that, since companies would avoid that kind of "competition" like fire or Orbital Ion Canon.How many of you use Intel products?
I bet most!
Money, money, money!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986954</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board.</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256988420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think Goldman Sachs was profitable all through the crisis, and didn't take any money from the gov. And now we know where all the money went.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think Goldman Sachs was profitable all through the crisis , and did n't take any money from the gov .
And now we know where all the money went .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think Goldman Sachs was profitable all through the crisis, and didn't take any money from the gov.
And now we know where all the money went.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986464</id>
	<title>err...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else smell bull*@#!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else smell bull * @ # !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else smell bull*@#!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984254</id>
	<title>Closing the barn door after the horse has left</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256979600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our government is so good at worrying about things several years too late.  It seems much of their evidence predates Intel's current CEO.  Way to stay on top of things.  I guess we have to wait until someone gets into office that hasn't received the appropriate bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions) to get anything done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our government is so good at worrying about things several years too late .
It seems much of their evidence predates Intel 's current CEO .
Way to stay on top of things .
I guess we have to wait until someone gets into office that has n't received the appropriate bribes ( oops , I mean campaign contributions ) to get anything done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our government is so good at worrying about things several years too late.
It seems much of their evidence predates Intel's current CEO.
Way to stay on top of things.
I guess we have to wait until someone gets into office that hasn't received the appropriate bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions) to get anything done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986044</id>
	<title>Segmentation</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1256985000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My boss tells me a few years ago Intel didn't have paging in their chips. So instead of working out how to do it they flew people all over the world trying to convince the best and the brightest that paging just could not work and segmentation was a better solution. It was a fools errand and they failed. Good thing too or the whole IT world would be 2 or 3 decades behind right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My boss tells me a few years ago Intel did n't have paging in their chips .
So instead of working out how to do it they flew people all over the world trying to convince the best and the brightest that paging just could not work and segmentation was a better solution .
It was a fools errand and they failed .
Good thing too or the whole IT world would be 2 or 3 decades behind right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My boss tells me a few years ago Intel didn't have paging in their chips.
So instead of working out how to do it they flew people all over the world trying to convince the best and the brightest that paging just could not work and segmentation was a better solution.
It was a fools errand and they failed.
Good thing too or the whole IT world would be 2 or 3 decades behind right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987412</id>
	<title>Whos really behind the scenes on this!!! guess who</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one only has to think of what big computer manufacturer is located in NY state and who themselves are just as bad at monopolizing the hardware market. Yep! you gussed it IBM. The big/bad computer computer doesnt like competition, doesn't want to sign those exclusive agreements they make everyone else sign and their small computer processing division that makes the power processor and others is getting hurt since everyone wants intel/amd and not a different processor which requires all the desktop applications to be rewritten to run on them. I guess IBM can't take some of their own medicine when other great competitors give them a run for their money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one only has to think of what big computer manufacturer is located in NY state and who themselves are just as bad at monopolizing the hardware market .
Yep ! you gussed it IBM .
The big/bad computer computer doesnt like competition , does n't want to sign those exclusive agreements they make everyone else sign and their small computer processing division that makes the power processor and others is getting hurt since everyone wants intel/amd and not a different processor which requires all the desktop applications to be rewritten to run on them .
I guess IBM ca n't take some of their own medicine when other great competitors give them a run for their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one only has to think of what big computer manufacturer is located in NY state and who themselves are just as bad at monopolizing the hardware market.
Yep! you gussed it IBM.
The big/bad computer computer doesnt like competition, doesn't want to sign those exclusive agreements they make everyone else sign and their small computer processing division that makes the power processor and others is getting hurt since everyone wants intel/amd and not a different processor which requires all the desktop applications to be rewritten to run on them.
I guess IBM can't take some of their own medicine when other great competitors give them a run for their money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29996712</id>
	<title>Better products, cheaper?</title>
	<author>Marthisdil</author>
	<datestamp>1257445740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*** 'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.***

AMD products suck.  Maybe had they not wasted money buying ATI they would have put more into development of processors, where once upon a time, they DIDN'T suck</htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * 'Intel 's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors , but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices .
These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace .
* * * AMD products suck .
Maybe had they not wasted money buying ATI they would have put more into development of processors , where once upon a time , they DID N'T suck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*** 'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.
These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.
***

AMD products suck.
Maybe had they not wasted money buying ATI they would have put more into development of processors, where once upon a time, they DIDN'T suck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985566</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>Joe Mucchiello</author>
	<datestamp>1256983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, far more likely to be related to IBM's Headquarters in Armonk. Does IBM still do any fabrication in Poughkeepsie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , far more likely to be related to IBM 's Headquarters in Armonk .
Does IBM still do any fabrication in Poughkeepsie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, far more likely to be related to IBM's Headquarters in Armonk.
Does IBM still do any fabrication in Poughkeepsie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984818</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy it.  For Goldman Sachs to have "engineered" the collapse, they would have had to be an omniscient god.  They may have taken advantage of it, using political connection to DC, but they certainly didn't plan events to happen.  I'm sure they would have preferred the bubble keep going up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy it .
For Goldman Sachs to have " engineered " the collapse , they would have had to be an omniscient god .
They may have taken advantage of it , using political connection to DC , but they certainly did n't plan events to happen .
I 'm sure they would have preferred the bubble keep going up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy it.
For Goldman Sachs to have "engineered" the collapse, they would have had to be an omniscient god.
They may have taken advantage of it, using political connection to DC, but they certainly didn't plan events to happen.
I'm sure they would have preferred the bubble keep going up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29988738</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's be fair- up until the Athlon, AMD's execution sucked. Chips were late and under-powered.  Athlon did a lot to change this, but if I'd been told that AMD was launching a new cpu, and that I should design systems around it because it was going to be the bomb, I'd be a little skeptical.  The delays getting K8 out the door didn't help anything.  Of course, once they established the superiority of the K8 over netburst, it's a whole different story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be fair- up until the Athlon , AMD 's execution sucked .
Chips were late and under-powered .
Athlon did a lot to change this , but if I 'd been told that AMD was launching a new cpu , and that I should design systems around it because it was going to be the bomb , I 'd be a little skeptical .
The delays getting K8 out the door did n't help anything .
Of course , once they established the superiority of the K8 over netburst , it 's a whole different story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be fair- up until the Athlon, AMD's execution sucked.
Chips were late and under-powered.
Athlon did a lot to change this, but if I'd been told that AMD was launching a new cpu, and that I should design systems around it because it was going to be the bomb, I'd be a little skeptical.
The delays getting K8 out the door didn't help anything.
Of course, once they established the superiority of the K8 over netburst, it's a whole different story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986046</id>
	<title>Delaware?</title>
	<author>NullProg</author>
	<datestamp>1256985000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Cuomo's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Wednesday, alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors. </i></p><p>Why is the New York AG filing lawsuits in Delaware?</p><p>Enjoy,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuomo 's lawsuit , filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Wednesday , alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors .
Why is the New York AG filing lawsuits in Delaware ? Enjoy,</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Cuomo's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Wednesday, alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors.
Why is the New York AG filing lawsuits in Delaware?Enjoy,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987190</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course. All things are connected in some way.</p><p>It also has something to do with Intel using illegal tactics. I'm shocked it took building a new multi-billion dollar fab to get anyone interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
All things are connected in some way.It also has something to do with Intel using illegal tactics .
I 'm shocked it took building a new multi-billion dollar fab to get anyone interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
All things are connected in some way.It also has something to do with Intel using illegal tactics.
I'm shocked it took building a new multi-billion dollar fab to get anyone interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984168</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'</p></div></blockquote><p>With that language, I wonder if he's just going for a consent decree regarding future conduct, and maybe a slap on the wrist.  I wonder if this will in any way lead to AMD being made whole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace .
'With that language , I wonder if he 's just going for a consent decree regarding future conduct , and maybe a slap on the wrist .
I wonder if this will in any way lead to AMD being made whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.
'With that language, I wonder if he's just going for a consent decree regarding future conduct, and maybe a slap on the wrist.
I wonder if this will in any way lead to AMD being made whole.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986690</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1256987220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure GloFo was more than forthcoming with all sorts of fantastic documents and whatnot they've had from all their previous rally sessions with other institutions against Intel.<br> <br>Not saying Intel doesn't have some major Karma issues coming back at them, it's just kinda fishy the new lawsuit just happens to be coming from a newly inducted AMD/GloFo state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure GloFo was more than forthcoming with all sorts of fantastic documents and whatnot they 've had from all their previous rally sessions with other institutions against Intel .
Not saying Intel does n't have some major Karma issues coming back at them , it 's just kinda fishy the new lawsuit just happens to be coming from a newly inducted AMD/GloFo state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure GloFo was more than forthcoming with all sorts of fantastic documents and whatnot they've had from all their previous rally sessions with other institutions against Intel.
Not saying Intel doesn't have some major Karma issues coming back at them, it's just kinda fishy the new lawsuit just happens to be coming from a newly inducted AMD/GloFo state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986262</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1256985600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All they had to do was watch that 30 minute training video on corporate ethics, but I guess they were too busy. What a shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All they had to do was watch that 30 minute training video on corporate ethics , but I guess they were too busy .
What a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they had to do was watch that 30 minute training video on corporate ethics, but I guess they were too busy.
What a shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985968</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Intel even need to do this?</title>
	<author>DrWho520</author>
	<datestamp>1256984760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You answered your own question.  The K8 product line beat anything Intel was pushing during that time frame.  It should have given AMD a sizable portion of the market share.  The performance was that much better.  In a free market, the obviously better product should take the market share, and as fast as the IT market moves, there should have a perceptible wave in market share and profit flowing into AMD.  Who knows where AMD R&amp;D would have gone with the influx of cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You answered your own question .
The K8 product line beat anything Intel was pushing during that time frame .
It should have given AMD a sizable portion of the market share .
The performance was that much better .
In a free market , the obviously better product should take the market share , and as fast as the IT market moves , there should have a perceptible wave in market share and profit flowing into AMD .
Who knows where AMD R&amp;D would have gone with the influx of cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You answered your own question.
The K8 product line beat anything Intel was pushing during that time frame.
It should have given AMD a sizable portion of the market share.
The performance was that much better.
In a free market, the obviously better product should take the market share, and as fast as the IT market moves, there should have a perceptible wave in market share and profit flowing into AMD.
Who knows where AMD R&amp;D would have gone with the influx of cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984704</id>
	<title>IT's called "I want to be Governor..."</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1256981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey lets file a couple of lawsuits against some companies and maybe I can be governor... strike the heroic looking photo of the AG "going after" evil Intel.</p><p>This lawsuit, like anything else our political classes do (regardless of party), is total b.s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey lets file a couple of lawsuits against some companies and maybe I can be governor... strike the heroic looking photo of the AG " going after " evil Intel.This lawsuit , like anything else our political classes do ( regardless of party ) , is total b.s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey lets file a couple of lawsuits against some companies and maybe I can be governor... strike the heroic looking photo of the AG "going after" evil Intel.This lawsuit, like anything else our political classes do (regardless of party), is total b.s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986106</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well they didn't do anything to microsoft.  They gave them a pass.  They are still giving them a pass (every day).  Windows must be split from Office, must be split from every other large application.  Further, there is no legal smackdown for microsoft not paying state taxes (IN WASHINGTON STATE!).  If more than 20\% of a companies operations are in any given state, they must pay taxes in that state based on the size of the operation within that state.  Having a single desk office in Nevada, and being incorporated there and paying very low tax rate there, means that they are not paying enough tax in Washington.  This must end.  Also the illegal tactics, collusion and racketeering of the harware/software market.  Paying a forty billion dollar fine would be a start, but a decade or two in jail for everyone on the top three or four tiers of the company would be a great start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well they did n't do anything to microsoft .
They gave them a pass .
They are still giving them a pass ( every day ) .
Windows must be split from Office , must be split from every other large application .
Further , there is no legal smackdown for microsoft not paying state taxes ( IN WASHINGTON STATE ! ) .
If more than 20 \ % of a companies operations are in any given state , they must pay taxes in that state based on the size of the operation within that state .
Having a single desk office in Nevada , and being incorporated there and paying very low tax rate there , means that they are not paying enough tax in Washington .
This must end .
Also the illegal tactics , collusion and racketeering of the harware/software market .
Paying a forty billion dollar fine would be a start , but a decade or two in jail for everyone on the top three or four tiers of the company would be a great start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well they didn't do anything to microsoft.
They gave them a pass.
They are still giving them a pass (every day).
Windows must be split from Office, must be split from every other large application.
Further, there is no legal smackdown for microsoft not paying state taxes (IN WASHINGTON STATE!).
If more than 20\% of a companies operations are in any given state, they must pay taxes in that state based on the size of the operation within that state.
Having a single desk office in Nevada, and being incorporated there and paying very low tax rate there, means that they are not paying enough tax in Washington.
This must end.
Also the illegal tactics, collusion and racketeering of the harware/software market.
Paying a forty billion dollar fine would be a start, but a decade or two in jail for everyone on the top three or four tiers of the company would be a great start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986242</id>
	<title>Re:Does it strike you as ironic?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256985540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The recent anti-trust scam is about defining the market so that the target is a monopoly by definition. That's why "server" computers (that might even use PC hardware) were artificially excluded from the "market" so that MS could be considered a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The recent anti-trust scam is about defining the market so that the target is a monopoly by definition .
That 's why " server " computers ( that might even use PC hardware ) were artificially excluded from the " market " so that MS could be considered a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The recent anti-trust scam is about defining the market so that the target is a monopoly by definition.
That's why "server" computers (that might even use PC hardware) were artificially excluded from the "market" so that MS could be considered a monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987160</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.</p></div><p>Holding companies accountable for their actions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.Holding companies accountable for their actions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.Holding companies accountable for their actions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985902</id>
	<title>Screw intel</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1256984580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never buy Intel CPUs. For a very long time AMD have had equivalent technology at a much better price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never buy Intel CPUs .
For a very long time AMD have had equivalent technology at a much better price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never buy Intel CPUs.
For a very long time AMD have had equivalent technology at a much better price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29991554</id>
	<title>Re:Please state Libertarian position?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you seriously asking slashdot libertarians what you should be thinking? If you want to form an opinion on this, then you <i>should</i> study this, or at least read a wikipedia article or two.</p><p>The libertarian position is interesting only in that it demonstrates their logical inconsistency and utopian magical thinking. On emotional note, since the libertarians love nationalistic rhetoric: The U.S. War of Independence (and, indeed, the original "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston\_Tea\_Party" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Tea Party</a> [wikipedia.org]") was as much about a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honourable\_East\_India\_Company" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">monopoly</a> [wikipedia.org] as the crown.</p><p>Besides the raw economics, monopolies and cartels get big enough to eat governments. The libertarian model requires strong tort; corporations in the U.S. are already powerful enough to make credible attempts at "tort reform" (that is, ending tort against corporations) daily.</p><p>This and many other inconsistencies demonstrate that libertarianism is not a viable framework for understanding economics <i>or</i> politics. Which makes me wonder what it's good for, besides whipping up nationalist fervor for political purposes and making pulp mills profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you seriously asking slashdot libertarians what you should be thinking ?
If you want to form an opinion on this , then you should study this , or at least read a wikipedia article or two.The libertarian position is interesting only in that it demonstrates their logical inconsistency and utopian magical thinking .
On emotional note , since the libertarians love nationalistic rhetoric : The U.S. War of Independence ( and , indeed , the original " Tea Party [ wikipedia.org ] " ) was as much about a monopoly [ wikipedia.org ] as the crown.Besides the raw economics , monopolies and cartels get big enough to eat governments .
The libertarian model requires strong tort ; corporations in the U.S. are already powerful enough to make credible attempts at " tort reform " ( that is , ending tort against corporations ) daily.This and many other inconsistencies demonstrate that libertarianism is not a viable framework for understanding economics or politics .
Which makes me wonder what it 's good for , besides whipping up nationalist fervor for political purposes and making pulp mills profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you seriously asking slashdot libertarians what you should be thinking?
If you want to form an opinion on this, then you should study this, or at least read a wikipedia article or two.The libertarian position is interesting only in that it demonstrates their logical inconsistency and utopian magical thinking.
On emotional note, since the libertarians love nationalistic rhetoric: The U.S. War of Independence (and, indeed, the original "Tea Party [wikipedia.org]") was as much about a monopoly [wikipedia.org] as the crown.Besides the raw economics, monopolies and cartels get big enough to eat governments.
The libertarian model requires strong tort; corporations in the U.S. are already powerful enough to make credible attempts at "tort reform" (that is, ending tort against corporations) daily.This and many other inconsistencies demonstrate that libertarianism is not a viable framework for understanding economics or politics.
Which makes me wonder what it's good for, besides whipping up nationalist fervor for political purposes and making pulp mills profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984218</id>
	<title>SpitzerSwallows?</title>
	<author>vandelais</author>
	<datestamp>1257022680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These cases Cuomo are bringing are transparently political and very thin.</p><p>It's almost like Cuomo's doing this B.S. on purpose to make Spitzer look good in retrospect. Say what you want about the man's personal life, but at least Spitzer's public bullhorn cases were backed up by well-documented actions of serious wrongdoing.</p><p>It's really starting to turn into amateur hour over at the NY A.G.'s office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These cases Cuomo are bringing are transparently political and very thin.It 's almost like Cuomo 's doing this B.S .
on purpose to make Spitzer look good in retrospect .
Say what you want about the man 's personal life , but at least Spitzer 's public bullhorn cases were backed up by well-documented actions of serious wrongdoing.It 's really starting to turn into amateur hour over at the NY A.G. 's office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These cases Cuomo are bringing are transparently political and very thin.It's almost like Cuomo's doing this B.S.
on purpose to make Spitzer look good in retrospect.
Say what you want about the man's personal life, but at least Spitzer's public bullhorn cases were backed up by well-documented actions of serious wrongdoing.It's really starting to turn into amateur hour over at the NY A.G.'s office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29997846</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1257451020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Okay, assuming that the allegations in the lawsuit are correct, and Intel massively abused its status to suppress competition and maintain a monopoly, causing lack of competition and higher prices, what are they going to do to Intel?
</p><p>
They aren't going to make AMD whole.  They aren't going to get enough money out of Intel to pay consumers for what they've paid extra.  I've never seen that sort of thing happen.  Intel will pay maybe a few hundred million dollars, and all will be forgiven, and they'll end up profiting greatly from the whole business in the long run.  Consumers might get coupons for ten bucks off a computer with an Intel processor.  Just like Microsoft is benefiting today from its earlier anticompetitive behavior, despite fines and court orders and the like.
</p><p>
If we're going to have laws on business practices, they have to be made so companies are likely to be worse off by violating the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , assuming that the allegations in the lawsuit are correct , and Intel massively abused its status to suppress competition and maintain a monopoly , causing lack of competition and higher prices , what are they going to do to Intel ?
They are n't going to make AMD whole .
They are n't going to get enough money out of Intel to pay consumers for what they 've paid extra .
I 've never seen that sort of thing happen .
Intel will pay maybe a few hundred million dollars , and all will be forgiven , and they 'll end up profiting greatly from the whole business in the long run .
Consumers might get coupons for ten bucks off a computer with an Intel processor .
Just like Microsoft is benefiting today from its earlier anticompetitive behavior , despite fines and court orders and the like .
If we 're going to have laws on business practices , they have to be made so companies are likely to be worse off by violating the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Okay, assuming that the allegations in the lawsuit are correct, and Intel massively abused its status to suppress competition and maintain a monopoly, causing lack of competition and higher prices, what are they going to do to Intel?
They aren't going to make AMD whole.
They aren't going to get enough money out of Intel to pay consumers for what they've paid extra.
I've never seen that sort of thing happen.
Intel will pay maybe a few hundred million dollars, and all will be forgiven, and they'll end up profiting greatly from the whole business in the long run.
Consumers might get coupons for ten bucks off a computer with an Intel processor.
Just like Microsoft is benefiting today from its earlier anticompetitive behavior, despite fines and court orders and the like.
If we're going to have laws on business practices, they have to be made so companies are likely to be worse off by violating the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29994036</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257432300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some ways yes.  It means there may be motivation to legally hurt intel for the sake helping their own local economy.  Lets use food for an example as food sales tends to be hard to have monopolies on.</p><p>Lets use Dole and Delmonte as an example they compete with each other and product similar products.   Now lets say I live in a good farming area... (I currently don't as I live actually near Albany, NY)  And they open a Dole plantation in the area has boosted my local economy.  However Delmonte competition who is based in an other State for its plantations, is a hinderance to our success.  So we will dig up any dirt that we can find on Delmonte let just say for example that they are doing something illegal or unethical.  So We sue them for this activity while we overlook any activities that Dole is doing. If it was a case the if Dole wasn't around we may have left it alone, and didn't care, or even supported such activities it made our food cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some ways yes .
It means there may be motivation to legally hurt intel for the sake helping their own local economy .
Lets use food for an example as food sales tends to be hard to have monopolies on.Lets use Dole and Delmonte as an example they compete with each other and product similar products .
Now lets say I live in a good farming area... ( I currently do n't as I live actually near Albany , NY ) And they open a Dole plantation in the area has boosted my local economy .
However Delmonte competition who is based in an other State for its plantations , is a hinderance to our success .
So we will dig up any dirt that we can find on Delmonte let just say for example that they are doing something illegal or unethical .
So We sue them for this activity while we overlook any activities that Dole is doing .
If it was a case the if Dole was n't around we may have left it alone , and did n't care , or even supported such activities it made our food cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some ways yes.
It means there may be motivation to legally hurt intel for the sake helping their own local economy.
Lets use food for an example as food sales tends to be hard to have monopolies on.Lets use Dole and Delmonte as an example they compete with each other and product similar products.
Now lets say I live in a good farming area... (I currently don't as I live actually near Albany, NY)  And they open a Dole plantation in the area has boosted my local economy.
However Delmonte competition who is based in an other State for its plantations, is a hinderance to our success.
So we will dig up any dirt that we can find on Delmonte let just say for example that they are doing something illegal or unethical.
So We sue them for this activity while we overlook any activities that Dole is doing.
If it was a case the if Dole wasn't around we may have left it alone, and didn't care, or even supported such activities it made our food cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984348</id>
	<title>Politicians + Tech = Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm neither an Intel fan nor an apologist, but I very seriously doubt whether Andrew Cuomo could tell a microprocessor from a microbrew.  As noted above, dude is running for governor here, not seriously prosecuting a case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm neither an Intel fan nor an apologist , but I very seriously doubt whether Andrew Cuomo could tell a microprocessor from a microbrew .
As noted above , dude is running for governor here , not seriously prosecuting a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm neither an Intel fan nor an apologist, but I very seriously doubt whether Andrew Cuomo could tell a microprocessor from a microbrew.
As noted above, dude is running for governor here, not seriously prosecuting a case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986072</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256985060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If AMD ends up getting money from this and you don't, it'll be exactly like the job they did on Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If AMD ends up getting money from this and you do n't , it 'll be exactly like the job they did on Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AMD ends up getting money from this and you don't, it'll be exactly like the job they did on Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984716</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does that change the facts of the case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that change the facts of the case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that change the facts of the case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984500</id>
	<title>Who gets the money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides the lawyers of course... if Intel did " hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices", does that mean everyone that bought a pc with an Intel processor gets a settlement?  I'm still waiting for my cheque from when the EU fined them back in May.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the lawyers of course... if Intel did " hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices " , does that mean everyone that bought a pc with an Intel processor gets a settlement ?
I 'm still waiting for my cheque from when the EU fined them back in May .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the lawyers of course... if Intel did " hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices", does that mean everyone that bought a pc with an Intel processor gets a settlement?
I'm still waiting for my cheque from when the EU fined them back in May.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29988294</id>
	<title>Backyard.</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1256993940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because they've done much more damage than wall street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because they 've done much more damage than wall street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because they've done much more damage than wall street.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986994</id>
	<title>Re:Please state Libertarian position?</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1256988600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine. The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice. Any advice?</i>
<br>
<br>
The idea of a monopoly strikes at the heart of many libertarian's ideology.  Their usual response is to simply claim (then angrily insist) that monopolies are the result of government.  In a full free market, there wouldn't be any.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one 's money , and it follows that paying someone ( some people call it bribery ) to persuade them to a position is fine .
The problem is i have n't studied this and , not being an expert , it 's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice .
Any advice ?
The idea of a monopoly strikes at the heart of many libertarian 's ideology .
Their usual response is to simply claim ( then angrily insist ) that monopolies are the result of government .
In a full free market , there would n't be any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine.
The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice.
Any advice?
The idea of a monopoly strikes at the heart of many libertarian's ideology.
Their usual response is to simply claim (then angrily insist) that monopolies are the result of government.
In a full free market, there wouldn't be any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984920</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1256981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming Adobe has a monopoly in some area or other, precisely how have they abused it?</p><p>The illegal part is the abuse/protection, not the monopoly itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming Adobe has a monopoly in some area or other , precisely how have they abused it ? The illegal part is the abuse/protection , not the monopoly itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming Adobe has a monopoly in some area or other, precisely how have they abused it?The illegal part is the abuse/protection, not the monopoly itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986156</id>
	<title>They couldn't make Microsoft stop</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1256985300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why bother?  Intel is just as nasty as M$.  If they couldn't make microsoft behave why do they think they can make Intel do right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother ?
Intel is just as nasty as M $ .
If they could n't make microsoft behave why do they think they can make Intel do right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother?
Intel is just as nasty as M$.
If they couldn't make microsoft behave why do they think they can make Intel do right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984720</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this is New York we're talking about, not Chicago. They're (well, supposed to be) more subtle about such things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is New York we 're talking about , not Chicago .
They 're ( well , supposed to be ) more subtle about such things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is New York we're talking about, not Chicago.
They're (well, supposed to be) more subtle about such things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985298</id>
	<title>Their Anti-Trust Suit</title>
	<author>bratwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1256982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their Antitrust lawsuita aren't like your antitrust lawsuits...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their Antitrust lawsuita are n't like your antitrust lawsuits.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their Antitrust lawsuita aren't like your antitrust lawsuits...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984140</id>
	<title>Adobe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm tired of seeing all these law suits against Intel.  Why doesn't someone target a true monopoly which has a great negative impact on consumers and the market place - Adobe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of seeing all these law suits against Intel .
Why does n't someone target a true monopoly which has a great negative impact on consumers and the market place - Adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of seeing all these law suits against Intel.
Why doesn't someone target a true monopoly which has a great negative impact on consumers and the market place - Adobe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985172</id>
	<title>Re:I'll scratch your back....</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1256982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say that viewpoint, which seems to be the mainstream on Slashdot, is like taking a single snapshot of a baseball game and acting like you can lay out the stats.</p><p>This antitrust lawsuit is filed after a precidence of antitrust lawsuits from other countries against Intel. Right now, if we take a snapshot of how Intel is competing, Intel may be playing fair. However, in the past - especially during the relatively long time (in the IT world at least) that AMD had the clear technology lead - there are quite a few reasons why there should be an antitrust lawsuit.</p><p>First of all, Intel only has the technology lead right now because Intel has more funds to dump into research and development. However, in the past, AMD leveraged themselves to put enormous amounts of funding into the Athlon and they came out with a clear technology lead. The market share barely followed. AMD had trouble selling their superior processors. The largest computer maker, Dell, was an Intel-only company. It's easy to be ignorant and blame bad execution on AMD's part - and maybe there was. But, there is some damning evidence that Intel was not playing fair. For example, AMD tried to give away 1 million processors to HP - and these were faster processors than Intel's at the time - but HP declined. Intel's pricing model was structured in a way to make it so that using any competitor in any small percentage would be more expensive than being 100\% Intel only. They did this by using 'marketing rebates' that would directly correlate with the percentage of Intel processors sold.</p><p>Face it.. the P4 sucked. It did nothing but suck for years. It was an awful processor. Yet, somehow, Intel kept its exclusive agreements long enough to keep AMD from gaining significant market share - which would have in turn allowed AMD to keep spending on R and D which would have allowed AMD to remain competitive. It takes YEARS to develop the next best processor. Intel is only sitting where it is because it successfully choked AMD years ago.</p><p>For a few quarters, AMD was kicking Intel's ass - but it should have been kicking way more ass than it was. Also, AMD's financial situation is a result of leveraging themselves in order to compete with Intel and then not receiving the market benefits that normally come in a competitive industry with a technology lead.</p><p>Further, it is hard to dismiss threats as evidenced in emails from Intel against business with competitors. Or, you can shove your head in the sand and call this entire complicated situation as all sorts of 'red herrings.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say that viewpoint , which seems to be the mainstream on Slashdot , is like taking a single snapshot of a baseball game and acting like you can lay out the stats.This antitrust lawsuit is filed after a precidence of antitrust lawsuits from other countries against Intel .
Right now , if we take a snapshot of how Intel is competing , Intel may be playing fair .
However , in the past - especially during the relatively long time ( in the IT world at least ) that AMD had the clear technology lead - there are quite a few reasons why there should be an antitrust lawsuit.First of all , Intel only has the technology lead right now because Intel has more funds to dump into research and development .
However , in the past , AMD leveraged themselves to put enormous amounts of funding into the Athlon and they came out with a clear technology lead .
The market share barely followed .
AMD had trouble selling their superior processors .
The largest computer maker , Dell , was an Intel-only company .
It 's easy to be ignorant and blame bad execution on AMD 's part - and maybe there was .
But , there is some damning evidence that Intel was not playing fair .
For example , AMD tried to give away 1 million processors to HP - and these were faster processors than Intel 's at the time - but HP declined .
Intel 's pricing model was structured in a way to make it so that using any competitor in any small percentage would be more expensive than being 100 \ % Intel only .
They did this by using 'marketing rebates ' that would directly correlate with the percentage of Intel processors sold.Face it.. the P4 sucked .
It did nothing but suck for years .
It was an awful processor .
Yet , somehow , Intel kept its exclusive agreements long enough to keep AMD from gaining significant market share - which would have in turn allowed AMD to keep spending on R and D which would have allowed AMD to remain competitive .
It takes YEARS to develop the next best processor .
Intel is only sitting where it is because it successfully choked AMD years ago.For a few quarters , AMD was kicking Intel 's ass - but it should have been kicking way more ass than it was .
Also , AMD 's financial situation is a result of leveraging themselves in order to compete with Intel and then not receiving the market benefits that normally come in a competitive industry with a technology lead.Further , it is hard to dismiss threats as evidenced in emails from Intel against business with competitors .
Or , you can shove your head in the sand and call this entire complicated situation as all sorts of 'red herrings .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say that viewpoint, which seems to be the mainstream on Slashdot, is like taking a single snapshot of a baseball game and acting like you can lay out the stats.This antitrust lawsuit is filed after a precidence of antitrust lawsuits from other countries against Intel.
Right now, if we take a snapshot of how Intel is competing, Intel may be playing fair.
However, in the past - especially during the relatively long time (in the IT world at least) that AMD had the clear technology lead - there are quite a few reasons why there should be an antitrust lawsuit.First of all, Intel only has the technology lead right now because Intel has more funds to dump into research and development.
However, in the past, AMD leveraged themselves to put enormous amounts of funding into the Athlon and they came out with a clear technology lead.
The market share barely followed.
AMD had trouble selling their superior processors.
The largest computer maker, Dell, was an Intel-only company.
It's easy to be ignorant and blame bad execution on AMD's part - and maybe there was.
But, there is some damning evidence that Intel was not playing fair.
For example, AMD tried to give away 1 million processors to HP - and these were faster processors than Intel's at the time - but HP declined.
Intel's pricing model was structured in a way to make it so that using any competitor in any small percentage would be more expensive than being 100\% Intel only.
They did this by using 'marketing rebates' that would directly correlate with the percentage of Intel processors sold.Face it.. the P4 sucked.
It did nothing but suck for years.
It was an awful processor.
Yet, somehow, Intel kept its exclusive agreements long enough to keep AMD from gaining significant market share - which would have in turn allowed AMD to keep spending on R and D which would have allowed AMD to remain competitive.
It takes YEARS to develop the next best processor.
Intel is only sitting where it is because it successfully choked AMD years ago.For a few quarters, AMD was kicking Intel's ass - but it should have been kicking way more ass than it was.
Also, AMD's financial situation is a result of leveraging themselves in order to compete with Intel and then not receiving the market benefits that normally come in a competitive industry with a technology lead.Further, it is hard to dismiss threats as evidenced in emails from Intel against business with competitors.
Or, you can shove your head in the sand and call this entire complicated situation as all sorts of 'red herrings.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984294</id>
	<title>Find/Replace</title>
	<author>Caviller</author>
	<datestamp>1256979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah if only I could just use find/replace and find all 'Intel' in the article and change them to 'ISP X' then it would be a good day...  Seriously, they should be going after the much more monoploistic ISPs in this country then Intel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah if only I could just use find/replace and find all 'Intel ' in the article and change them to 'ISP X ' then it would be a good day... Seriously , they should be going after the much more monoploistic ISPs in this country then Intel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah if only I could just use find/replace and find all 'Intel' in the article and change them to 'ISP X' then it would be a good day...  Seriously, they should be going after the much more monoploistic ISPs in this country then Intel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984482</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, if you look around a bit there are free, functional replacements for almost everything that Adobe makes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , if you look around a bit there are free , functional replacements for almost everything that Adobe makes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, if you look around a bit there are free, functional replacements for almost everything that Adobe makes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682</id>
	<title>Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1256980980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding, from talking with Intel employees, is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul\_Otellini" title="wikipedia.org">Paul Otellini</a> [wikipedia.org]
is not a good CEO.

<br> <br>My understanding is that only one member of the <a href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/bod.htm" title="intel.com">Intel Board of
Directors</a> [intel.com] has any technical knowledge. How can people with no technical
knowledge oversee an enormously high-tech company? They can't.

<br> <br>Intel board member John L. Thornton was president and CEO of Goldman
Sachs Group, it says. <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the\_great\_american\_bubble\_machine" title="rollingstone.com">Goldman Sachs</a> [rollingstone.com] helped engineer the present financial collapse. Since the
collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable. The U.S. government has done
NOTHING to prevent further abuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding , from talking with Intel employees , is that Paul Otellini [ wikipedia.org ] is not a good CEO .
My understanding is that only one member of the Intel Board of Directors [ intel.com ] has any technical knowledge .
How can people with no technical knowledge oversee an enormously high-tech company ?
They ca n't .
Intel board member John L. Thornton was president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group , it says .
Goldman Sachs [ rollingstone.com ] helped engineer the present financial collapse .
Since the collapse , Goldman Sachs has been very profitable .
The U.S. government has done NOTHING to prevent further abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding, from talking with Intel employees, is that Paul Otellini [wikipedia.org]
is not a good CEO.
My understanding is that only one member of the Intel Board of
Directors [intel.com] has any technical knowledge.
How can people with no technical
knowledge oversee an enormously high-tech company?
They can't.
Intel board member John L. Thornton was president and CEO of Goldman
Sachs Group, it says.
Goldman Sachs [rollingstone.com] helped engineer the present financial collapse.
Since the
collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable.
The U.S. government has done
NOTHING to prevent further abuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984826</id>
	<title>Re:It's the new fad</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1256981400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I wouldn't say the Microsoft anti-trust suit was nearly as successful as many of us Slashdot types would've hoped, it did have some benefits. It managed to stop a few pernicious practices, like exclusive licensing to OEMs (who weren't allowed to sell non-Windows OSs if they wanted to receive the normal favorable OEM pricing). It also provided a sort of hovering threat that forced Microsoft to at least think a little harder about whether they wanted to engage in new anti-competitive practices, since MS knew the cost of doing so would be higher than otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I would n't say the Microsoft anti-trust suit was nearly as successful as many of us Slashdot types would 've hoped , it did have some benefits .
It managed to stop a few pernicious practices , like exclusive licensing to OEMs ( who were n't allowed to sell non-Windows OSs if they wanted to receive the normal favorable OEM pricing ) .
It also provided a sort of hovering threat that forced Microsoft to at least think a little harder about whether they wanted to engage in new anti-competitive practices , since MS knew the cost of doing so would be higher than otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I wouldn't say the Microsoft anti-trust suit was nearly as successful as many of us Slashdot types would've hoped, it did have some benefits.
It managed to stop a few pernicious practices, like exclusive licensing to OEMs (who weren't allowed to sell non-Windows OSs if they wanted to receive the normal favorable OEM pricing).
It also provided a sort of hovering threat that forced Microsoft to at least think a little harder about whether they wanted to engage in new anti-competitive practices, since MS knew the cost of doing so would be higher than otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</id>
	<title>It's the new fad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987060</id>
	<title>Fab Capacity</title>
	<author>PhrstBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1256988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that people are either forgetting or ignoring this point:</p><p>AMD doesn't and didn't have the fab capabilities to take the market overnight.  It would take a long time to start eating away the market share that Intel has.  The amount of fab capacity that Intel has is enormous.  They could stockpile months of chips if they wanted.  AMD was selling chips as soon as they came off the production line.</p><p>AMD could not have gone to Dell and said "I'll supply all of your x86 chips cheaper than Intel, buy mine instead" if they wanted to.  They wouldn't have been able to keep up with the demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that people are either forgetting or ignoring this point : AMD does n't and did n't have the fab capabilities to take the market overnight .
It would take a long time to start eating away the market share that Intel has .
The amount of fab capacity that Intel has is enormous .
They could stockpile months of chips if they wanted .
AMD was selling chips as soon as they came off the production line.AMD could not have gone to Dell and said " I 'll supply all of your x86 chips cheaper than Intel , buy mine instead " if they wanted to .
They would n't have been able to keep up with the demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that people are either forgetting or ignoring this point:AMD doesn't and didn't have the fab capabilities to take the market overnight.
It would take a long time to start eating away the market share that Intel has.
The amount of fab capacity that Intel has is enormous.
They could stockpile months of chips if they wanted.
AMD was selling chips as soon as they came off the production line.AMD could not have gone to Dell and said "I'll supply all of your x86 chips cheaper than Intel, buy mine instead" if they wanted to.
They wouldn't have been able to keep up with the demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984956</id>
	<title>Why did Intel even need to do this?</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1256981880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was a pretty stupid move on Intel's part, they didn't even need to act in this way because they seem to have really pegged the market precisely in going after the performance/efficiency angle with that last few years worth of chips.  I should know, I was an AMD fan throughout the late 90s and early 00s but for my newest PC I went with an Intel Core Duo2 because they really are that great in terms of speed versus power consumption.  Not to mention that during AMD's disaster with their <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7226" title="zdnet.com">Barcelona quad core chips</a> [zdnet.com], there really wasn't any choice for awhile for quad core chips except for Intel.  Most of the dates in TFA are from 2003-2006, I suppose those were really <a href="http://www.thei7.com/intel-vs-amd-marketshare/" title="thei7.com">sort of dark years for Intel</a> [thei7.com] in that it seemed like AMD was gaining ground and their chips were cheaper for the same performance, but now Intel's latest are really quite good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was a pretty stupid move on Intel 's part , they did n't even need to act in this way because they seem to have really pegged the market precisely in going after the performance/efficiency angle with that last few years worth of chips .
I should know , I was an AMD fan throughout the late 90s and early 00s but for my newest PC I went with an Intel Core Duo2 because they really are that great in terms of speed versus power consumption .
Not to mention that during AMD 's disaster with their Barcelona quad core chips [ zdnet.com ] , there really was n't any choice for awhile for quad core chips except for Intel .
Most of the dates in TFA are from 2003-2006 , I suppose those were really sort of dark years for Intel [ thei7.com ] in that it seemed like AMD was gaining ground and their chips were cheaper for the same performance , but now Intel 's latest are really quite good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was a pretty stupid move on Intel's part, they didn't even need to act in this way because they seem to have really pegged the market precisely in going after the performance/efficiency angle with that last few years worth of chips.
I should know, I was an AMD fan throughout the late 90s and early 00s but for my newest PC I went with an Intel Core Duo2 because they really are that great in terms of speed versus power consumption.
Not to mention that during AMD's disaster with their Barcelona quad core chips [zdnet.com], there really wasn't any choice for awhile for quad core chips except for Intel.
Most of the dates in TFA are from 2003-2006, I suppose those were really sort of dark years for Intel [thei7.com] in that it seemed like AMD was gaining ground and their chips were cheaper for the same performance, but now Intel's latest are really quite good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985114</id>
	<title>Does it strike you as ironic?</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1256982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it strike anybody else as a bit ironic to have Intel being sued for a market segmet defined by Intel?</p><p>There are loads os chips out there tat can easily be made into a GP computer - ARM, MIPS, SPARC, and Cell, to name a few. It's Intel that defines 'x86' and they are being sued in tat 'market'.</p><p>I'm not saying this suit isn't a good idea. Just seems a bit ironic...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it strike anybody else as a bit ironic to have Intel being sued for a market segmet defined by Intel ? There are loads os chips out there tat can easily be made into a GP computer - ARM , MIPS , SPARC , and Cell , to name a few .
It 's Intel that defines 'x86 ' and they are being sued in tat 'market'.I 'm not saying this suit is n't a good idea .
Just seems a bit ironic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it strike anybody else as a bit ironic to have Intel being sued for a market segmet defined by Intel?There are loads os chips out there tat can easily be made into a GP computer - ARM, MIPS, SPARC, and Cell, to name a few.
It's Intel that defines 'x86' and they are being sued in tat 'market'.I'm not saying this suit isn't a good idea.
Just seems a bit ironic...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984868</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since the collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable.</p></div><p>They would have been bankrupt if the US hadn't bailed out AIG.  The AIG bailout was just a Goldman Sachs bailout in disguise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the collapse , Goldman Sachs has been very profitable.They would have been bankrupt if the US had n't bailed out AIG .
The AIG bailout was just a Goldman Sachs bailout in disguise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable.They would have been bankrupt if the US hadn't bailed out AIG.
The AIG bailout was just a Goldman Sachs bailout in disguise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29994036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29996388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29991554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29988738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1934242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29994036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29988738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29996388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29987160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29986994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29991554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1934242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29984956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1934242.29985968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
