Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.030606.22836@amd.com>
Date: 17 Oct 90 03:06:06 GMT
References: <1990Oct11.214112.1392@mozart.amd.com> <14616@netcom.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 30


I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE COMPANY.

In article <14616@netcom.UUCP> feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) writes:
|You forgot about the Judge's reference to AMD's "unremitting
|vindictiveness".

Could you reference this, please?

The Judge wrote:

"	Throughout this case, I have observed that Intel
always thought the worst of AMD, that, if there were more
than one way to view, weight or evaluate an AMD action,
Intel would adopt the negative, the critical, the one most
likely to attribute to AMD an evil motive or duplicity or
deceit or lack of what Intel considered proper engineering
discipline or expertise in design, production or marketing.
This has always puzzled me, because AMD is not evil or
duplicitous nor deceitful; and I have been impressed
by its engineering standards and abilities equally with
those of Intel; and I was most favorably impressed with
the forthright honesty, ability and expertise of some
of the principal AMD players who testified... By and
large AMD was never deserving of the general Intel
attitude.
	Nor did the attitude become Intel."

--
The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.