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 223.53+1.1%Jan 14 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (252015)5/19/2008 4:12:59 PM
From: Elmer PhudRead Replies (1) of 275872
 
AMD is not arguing what you claim they are.

What claim was that? There have been so many and nobody, including you, references which statement they are responding to.

If you mean this:

"While a monopolist's prices could be above the marginal short term cost of producing an additional unit, they may be below an equally efficient competitor's long term costs of staying in business". Thus according to AMD, Intel should forego profitable sales of additional units because Intel's prices are allegedly below AMD's long run costs.

That is Intel's statement, not mine. If it is your position that the reference to an "equally efficient competitor" was not a reference to AMD at all, but a reference to a hypothetical supplier who was equally efficient then does it really matter? Intel dismisses it anyway as such:

AMD's position has no basis in Law. The Third Circuit has stated that as long as a Firm's prices exceeds it's marginal cost, each additional sale decreases losses or increases profits. Such pricing is presumably not predatory".

So my non expert interpretation is that Intel is saying that AMD is trying to redefine price-cost, regardless of who the equally efficient competitor actually is, it's not the test according to case law.

Which is correct? You may have your opinion and I have mine. A Judge must decide.
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