Gregg,
RE: >>I would say that they should think real carefully about suing them <<
<<That -is- the entire point of the Intel suit, and a distraction, I say, from the real patent infringement issue>>
That is not the point Greg. Intel's lawsuit was not meant as a warning to others, it was meant to put DEC on notice that the business relationship between the two companies is about to be severed - because of DEC's suit and the methodology by which they presented it.
If it distracts from the patent infringment issue, so be it. That suit will be hashly litigated by Intel separately from the decision to terminate business with DEC.
<<Basically, Intel says if you don't do business as we say we take you out by denying supply (in this case, the forward information needed to
incorporate PII).>>
Nope. What they are saying is that they don't want to do business with DEC any longer, and as a starter, they demand that those materials pertaining to future products be returned. Any company can make such decisions. The Justice department is not involved in such things.
<<I am not a lawyer but my supposition is that the existence of a
virtual monopoly is ok until that monopoly tries to exert its muscle to the detriment of competition>>
First of all, Intel is NOT, I repeat NOT, a monopoly - vitual or otherwise. There are all kinds of substitutes available in the marketplace for their products. The wide availability of substitutes such as Motorola's, AMD's, CYRIX's and other's products substantiates this claim. The fact that the market chooses one company's product to the detriment of others does not make the market leader a monopolist.
<< I don't know if/how many laws they might be percieved to be breaking by attempting to exclude a Company from use of its products. >>
Perception is one thing. Reality is another.
Barry |
