>Hello. Competition. Competitor.
Well dah. Slowly you are starting to get the point. It appears that the EU is intent on protecting the competition[FALSE1], regardless of competitiveness[NONSEQ2], even at the expense of the consumer[FALSE3]. If Intel has a better and cheaper solution, like it does[NONSEQ4], then the consumer should pay more[STRAW5] so the competition gets a chance too? That's not letting the market work[STRAW6], but it appears that's not the goal of the EU[FALSE7], which was the point in the first place.
Never miss a chance to repeat your groundless narrative, do you?
[FALSE1]: EU's actions are designed to protect "competition", not "the competition".
[NONSEQ2]: Non-sequitur, pulled out of thin air.
[FALSE3]: You have no basis to claim that the EU's actions are "at the expense of the consumer" and it's been shown to you over and over how Intel's loyalty rebates and other activities can result in increased prices and decreased choices for consumers.
[NONSEQ4]: Refer to current situation, not that of the period in question.
[STRAW5]: See FALSE3; Assumes consumer pays less via Intel's loyalty rebates without proof, and ignores the possibility that AMD's chips could have been better and cheaper at the time.
[STRAW6]: Strawman, conclusion based on false premises.
[FALSE7]: No ground, argument ad nauseum, demonstrably false.
Get over it, Intel has been charged with breaking specific antitrust laws. Your reliance on falsehoods, strawmen arguments and character-assassination of the prosecutors in your defense of Intel smacks of desperation.
fpg |
