[duxup]

There's got to be a law or something where for a given thread there is some user who has a conspiracy theory about it.

[mizzack]

Conspiracies, eh

https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....

Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)

[Thorrez]

Those say Intel was unfairly competing with AMD.

That's different from Intel conspiring with the Wall Street Journal to write negative (and maybe false) articles about AMD.

[duxup]

Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy?

Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from.

The claim is that the article was FUD.

The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

[mizzack]

Sure, saying there are ulterior motives to this story is a conspiracy theory. Without, say, video evidence of the author getting handed a bag of money by Bob Swan you're free to dismissively label it as such.

Without more information we're left with:

- Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago.

- AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric.

- The last time this happened, Intel engaged in outright illegal non-competitive behavior to preserve market share.

>It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... You know what I'm trying to say...

[duxup]

Couldn't you also argue that any bad news about say a politician that comes out would be a conspiracy too as that would be a benefit to someone...?

[arcanus]

> The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone.

While this does not prove the original accusation, it is supporting evidence, and makes the statement more plausible.

[duxup]

I don't think it makes anything more plausible.

If there is zero proof of the claim, stuff that isn't proof ... still isn't proof.

I feel like using your reasoning, you could argue ANYTHING is more plausible.

[sbov]

So basically: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Learn your lesson, it's a conspiracy theory.

Also, calling it "fierce competition" is a mischaracterization of their actions. They have been fined by countries for these practices, and have done what they could to keep the evidence from public view. Intel deserves the suspicion they get.

[duxup]

Do you feel your description supports means the article is FUD?