>You are attributing YOUR OWN statements to ME
Sorry but apparently you still just don't get it. I was taking your statement, which you graciously quoted to save me the bother, and simply extended your "logic", for lack of a better word.
Maybe some with more patience will explain it to you.
You haven't explained anything at all. You took my A:
"Remember, its the effect of the rebates, not the wording. If the effect is coercive, they're coercive."
and you "extended" it directly to Z:
"By your reasoning, AMD has the power to make Intel's contracts coercive by not offering a compelling alternative. Furthermore, a product, by itself, could be so compelling as to make it's mere offering coercive."
without saying how you made that leap, and then claim your "extension" results from my "reasoning", and I own its faults...
...Even as I documented my historical support for competition on the merits, and demonstrated that your Z is obviously bogus, in light of the contemporary application of the Equally Efficient Competitor standard. (Do you still not understand that simple method?)
Oh, and thanks for proving my prediction correct:
(I bet anything you ignore the majority of this post, pick out 1 or 2 lines to respond to, and ad hom me again.)
Message 26027693
fpg |
