SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 221.06-1.1%Jan 5 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Windsock who wrote (261997)10/18/2009 2:17:46 AM
From: fastpathguru of 275872
 
I just had to revisit this email because earlier, I hadn't realized how fatally flawed your argument is.

You start with a simple (yet incomplete) definition of Intel's Meet Comp Program:

The "Meet Comp" process begins when the buyer says: "Hey, AMD is giving me a better deal." Intel responds by giving the buyer a new offer with a lower price and perhaps better terms to match the AMD offer.

* MCP exists. (That shouldn't be controversial...)

* It is applied when the buyer says they have a better offer from AMD. (i.e. Intel needs to compensate for its own inferior offer via MCP... A non-trivial admission!)

* Next? "Intel responds by giving the buyer a new offer with [...] better terms." (A lower price falls into the category of "better terms." Stating it separately is redundant.)

* Win! (And you're in The MCP Safe Harbor! Win again!)

So:

A) You've admitted that, by definition, MCP exists/existed to compensate for situations where Intel's offerings are/were uncompetitive, and

B) Made a sweeping and unconditional claim that any "better terms" used to "Meet the Competition" fall into "The MCP Safe Harbor", which is clearly false: Terms including exclusivity requirements would clearly not fall into any safe harbor. The only way you can make B true is by defining the boundaries of The MCP Safe Harbor, and prove that Intel's MCP doesn't fall outside of it... I.e. the whole point of the lawsuits.

Good job, you've at least robbed Elmer of one of his favorite lines of attack: That AMD lost sales due to inferior products and not because of the MCP.

fpg
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News