re: <<"I hardly think advanced microprocessors qualify as commodities.">>
<Not only they are not commodities, but also the act says that they must be "of like grade and quality".>
The legal definition of a "commodity" is not at all what the commodities exchanges call a "commodity."
Cellephane tape isn't a commodity by that definition either. I am sure 3M trotted out all kinds of patents, processes, labelling, etc. that made their tape "unique," thereby not a commodity.
They lost.
I do admit that cellophane tape is MORE of a commodity than microprocessors are, but its a tough line to draw, and if anti-competitive behavior is aparent, I don't think the "not-a-commodity" argument will hold water.
AMD is not trying to argue that contracts cannot contain unique items such as those you allude to, and the court will grant reasonable economic cost to special handling, inventory processes, thermal compound or whatever you might think of. I doubt very much that ANY economic justification can be found for the end-of-quarter "first dollar rebate." It is, pure and simple, a technique designed to make it economically impossible for an OEM to increase its purchases of the minority company's products. It's also really impossible to wield this tool with OEM's that have more than about 30% market share from the minority competitor, unless you really cheat at it. It's impossible to set targets that are high enough to prevent the minority market share from growing, but not so high as to make it likely that an OEM fail to meet the target even though they were "loyal."
Petz |
