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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO)
CSCO 72.11-0.3%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (23003)2/22/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: Doughboy  Read Replies (2) of 77397
 
Kenneth:

There is no antitrust problem, IMO, from insisting on 85% Cisco content to get a Cisco Powered Network designation. This is called a tying arrangement. Tying is illegal if you have a monopoly in one product (e.g. Windows) and you "tie" the sale of the product to the sale of another product (e.g., you can't have Windows without buying Explorer). Cisco arguably has a monopoly in its market (the routers or the IOS, etc.) but what is the tied product? There is none. The Cisco Powered Network designation is not a product for sale. I assume Cisco pays companies to be designated "Cisco Powered" (or at least gives it to them for free). And even if Cisco found stupid enough carriers to pay for the privilege to call their networks "Cisco Powered" I would still find it unlikely to be an antitrust problem since there is no market that is being harmed. There is no competitor to "Cisco Powered." Lucent is not out there saying that their sales of "Lucent Lit" sticker sets have been hammered by Cisco. The one thing Cisco cannot do is to say, we won't let you use our IOS or you can't buy our routers unless you also buy our other products. Otherwise affinity programs are perfectly legal, IMO.

Doughboy.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext