24 ms·

> until AMD authorizes publication AMD doesn't have the power to prevent publication of research from third party researchers that haven't entered in an agreem

by Sephr 9y ago

> until AMD authorizes publication AMD doesn't have the power to prevent publication of research from third party researchers that haven't entered in an agreement with them. This definitely isn't insider trading.

eganist 9y ago
> AMD doesn't have the power to prevent publication of research from third party researchers that haven't entered in an agreement with them. This definitely isn't insider trading. Correct, though this assumes AMD has yet to reply. If AMD did reply after the initial disclosure and before any trades were made, then the order of events which may warrant such a look would be: - Private Disclosure made. - AMD replies privately with anything substantive. This could include a timeline, or even an indication that a fix may take a while. - Trades made. - Public disclosure made. Should events follow this sequence, trades made would have been informed by private knowledge from AMD that had yet to be released. I'm not saying this is how it played out, but if it did, I'd suspect some amount of legal exposure.
- Sephr 9y ago
  > AMD replies privately Their replies are only private if the discloser keeps them private. The discloser is free to publish their correspondences with AMD which may include a timeline. Regardless, this entire publication can happen without once talking to AMD. There is no need to notify or correspond with AMD in order to publish the security research and short AMD's stock.
  - eganist 9y ago
    > Their replies are only private if the discloser keeps them private. The discloser is free to publish their correspondences with AMD which may include a timeline. Sure, but if trades are made and correspondences are subsequently released, those trades were made with insider information is my point.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

24 ms·

> until AMD authorizes publication AMD doesn't have the power to prevent publication of research from third party researchers that haven't entered in an agreem

by Sephr 9y ago

eganist 9y ago
> AMD doesn't have the power to prevent publication of research from third party researchers that haven't entered in an agreement with them. This definitely isn't insider trading. Correct, though this assumes AMD has yet to reply. If AMD did reply after the initial disclosure and before any trades were made, then the order of events which may warrant such a look would be: - Private Disclosure made. - AMD replies privately with anything substantive. This could include a timeline, or even an indication that a fix may take a while. - Trades made. - Public disclosure made. Should events follow this sequence, trades made would have been informed by private knowledge from AMD that had yet to be released. I'm not saying this is how it played out, but if it did, I'd suspect some amount of legal exposure.
- Sephr 9y ago
  > AMD replies privately Their replies are only private if the discloser keeps them private. The discloser is free to publish their correspondences with AMD which may include a timeline. Regardless, this entire publication can happen without once talking to AMD. There is no need to notify or correspond with AMD in order to publish the security research and short AMD's stock.
  - eganist 9y ago
    > Their replies are only private if the discloser keeps them private. The discloser is free to publish their correspondences with AMD which may include a timeline. Sure, but if trades are made and correspondences are subsequently released, those trades were made with insider information is my point.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]