>"Sounds like you are the one with a financial interest in the case. Did you bet the farm on Intel losing? "
Nope, that's a false inference. Just because I don't immediately absolve Intel does not mean I have not said that I must therefore believe AMD's case.
>"I have neither financial, nor career interest in either company."
Absolutely likewise. That's why I don't choose to immediately side with /either/ one as a matter of blind faith. You /did/, and that's what made me wonder. In the spirit of fair debate, I will completely accept your declaration of disinterest, because that's actually the core of my point: why, if disinterested, are you so strongly (what seems to me) biased in your reading of the same set of basic information?
>"Regarding discounts and volume contracts, Diane got the point, but you didn't."
Well, that remains to be seen!
>" I wrote 'reaches the degree of exclusivity' because if I were framing a contract and wanted an exclusive deal but didn't want to spell that out in the contract (because I have smart lawyers and what not). Then I would build the contract [...] "
Yes, thank you, I'm not actually daft and I did understand perfectly that that was what you are suggesting had happened.
The point that /I/ made and that /you/ missed, however, is that that is *not* what they are being accused of by AMD. AMD are claiming that they *did* spell it out in the contract. That, I trust you would agree, is of *course* illegal anti-competitive behaviour if it *is* what happened, no? Well, /that/ is what I understand the story to be telling us that AMD alleges - specifically in the Sony case. I don't see anything in the story that suggests that AMD are claiming Intel did what you describe.
Therefore I suggest that there is a case to be heard here, that AMD must have their day in court and show *evidence* of what they claim, that Intel must *defend* against those claims, and that none of us can pretend to know from such a hugely redacted report what the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments are on either side until we get to see such evidence and defence. And I am surpised that you should produce this hypothesis based on nothing we can read in the story that it was a mere innocent sales tactic on Intel's part.
>"Regarding the compiler functionality, I'm not sure that it would matter if Intel had written a function into the compiler to make executables flip on their back with their legs in the air on an AMD chip."
Well, you'll have to forgive my misunderstanding there, because that's exactly what you said /would/ matter in your first post, and then came up with another unfounded-on-any-information-in-the-article-we-were-all-reading hypothesis why it wasn't the case anyway.
>"Intel writes a compiler for it's product, not that of someone else. the fact that AMD have an x86 chip of their own design does not mean that an Intel compiler will produce code that works well (or at all ) on it. Unless the AMD chip is functionally identical to the Intel chip(s) that the compiler is targeted at there can be no expectation that it would work unless it's explicitly stated that it will work."
There's a world of difference between the compiler not working for AMD because it, say, chooses the opcodes that work best on Intel CPUs which happens to be a deleterious choice for AMD CPUs, and actually having a segment of "if (cpuid == amd) then crash" code deliberately inserted into the compiler, and again, you're ignoring what the article actually tells us that AMD are claiming. They are claiming deliberate sabotage. It is, after all, anti-competitive to needlessly obstruct competitors from making compatible products. Again, there is a case to be heard here, and if what AMD claim is so, they should be able to produce some fairly convincing evidence in the form of disassembled code.
Not having any personal bias nor external sources of information to go on in this matter, I choose to wait and see the evidence.
Your immediate response was to immediately start grasping at unfounded hypotheses that absolve one side of guilt.
There not being any evidence for you to have chosen which side to absolve, why did you choose to absolve Intel?