>re: "If there is anything that is close to a communist system, it is a monopoly."
and
"The tactics are the same. Bullying, coersion, paranoia, extorsion. I think Andy just recreated the nightmare from which he escaped."
Joe, I think that you jumping to an invalid conclusion. It is not illegal to be a monopoly, and being a monopoly does not imply that one even using "Bullying, coersion, paranoia, extorsion". A company can, in fact, become a monopoly simply by supplying the BEST products at the LOWEST prices with the best service. There is no automatic connection between being a monopoly and using the tactics which you describe. A monopoly might or might not attempt to use such tactics, just as a non-monopolistic competitor might, or might not, attempt to use them. That's what antitrust laws are all about, really, among other things (like "giving" away a product which is only a part of your business, but which is all of the business of a potentially dangerous competitor, for example).
The DOJ is investigating Intel, and my guess is that when the investigation is complete, there will be little or no action because, in general, I don't think that Intel is engaging in the practices which you site, practices which we agreee are unfair, but which are hardly the definition of a monopoly.
And, finally, with all of that said, and given the success that AMD and Cyrix are having (not to mention IDT Centaur, or even non-X86 CPU manufacturers), I don't even accept the underlying contention that Intel even IS a monopoly at this time. |
