Are you persuaded that Intel has bundled products of types that AMD makes with products of types that AMD does not make into the same rebate bundle ?
AMD's allegations pertain to volume-based loyalty rebates, not bundle-based loyalty rebates.
I am persuaded that this is the only way that the LePage precedent will apply to AMD vs Intel.
AMD's theory takes pieces of LePage's and many other precedent setting cases and applies them to the particulars of this case.
If cases were settled by precedents set by nearest-match cases alone, there would be no need for any new trials... Just find the closest matching case and apply it's results.
Even in all the material you've looked up to support your position, a common theme is that each case has it's own peculiarities which must be considered.
For instance, at:
findarticles.com
"""
Citing LePage's, the court recognized that "anticompetitive conduct [could] come in many forms, generally driven by the facts of a particular case."
"""
AMD's case will be tried on its own merits.
Are you persuaded otherwise ? meaning that simply more quantity of same product constitutes a "different product" to which the entire extra rebate should be applied, a-la LePage ?
No, I think that AMD will attempt to divide OEM's demand into contestable and un-contestable componenets, and the rebates should be applied to Intel's sales into the contestable component a-la the discount attribution standard, resulting in below-cost pricing for that component.
That is what they say they can do.
The theory is credible and well supported (google "loyalty rebates"), and the fact that it hasn't been vetted by the courts doesn't mean that it can't be. Depending upon the evidence, it could be a total failure, or a slam dunk.
One way of looking at it: We know Intel gave rebates; There should at least be a raw money trail (i.e. the raw amounts of the rebates.)
Now, Intel can either justify those rebates (why were they given?) or not. If not, it doesn't look so good for Intel... What business sense does it make to just give cash away for no reason? If so, the conditions for receiving the rebates will be looked at from a rule-of-reason perspective: Were the rebates conditioned on volume triggers? Or what?
It's not that tough to imagine a formula that incorporates the amount of the rebates, the triggers for the rebates, timeframes they covered, rough marketshare expectations, etc. where the discount attribution standard is applied given these variables...
And out pops a binary answer to the question: Was the price of contested units below cost?
I think that is your point of view. And I also think it has less chance of surviving than a snowball in hell.
I don't think your "analysis" justifies your confidence.
fpg |
