Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (82086)	12/5/1999 12:44:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573648

I believe what Petz was refering to is called a "fair-trade" law. I have a lot of experience with them but don't really want to go there. Getting out an Athlon before Christmas may have been too much of a rush job for Gateway...Intel may have helped that by giving something. I'd downgrade Gateway to neutral, even sell, because of it though... Jim

To: Elmer who wrote (82086)	12/5/1999 1:15:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573648

Re: If AMD is competitive then there's no monopoly... Hi Elmer, Anti-trust can occur in the absence of monopoly, and monopoly is irrelevant to extortion. And since these parts are crossing state lines, cases can be brought in Federal court, on the basis of interference with interstate commerce (gives the plaintiff some control over venue, which can be an important advantage). If Intel is involving itself in AMD's contracts with Gateway, Taiwanese motherboard production supporting AMD chips and other areas, it could constitute threatening a second party with retaliation for what is essentially a third-party transaction. This could get them into trouble both civilly (interference with other's contractual relationships, RICO) and criminally (extortion, RICO, and anti-trust). I'm skeptical that most of the measures being used by Intel would be considered illegal only in the context of monopoly. In any event, the rule of thumb is generally that having 2/3 of the market constitutes a monopoly, and we do have the recent Microsoft decision as a precedent, don't we? Isn't Intel's current market share percentage mid 80s? More than 3 instances of an illegal action trigger RICO, with its trebling of damages, and anti-trust violations are automatic treble damage awards statutes. Since we're potentially talking about multi-billion dollar damages, this could become expensive, even for Intel. Regards, Dan

To: Elmer who wrote (82086)	12/5/1999 7:04:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573648

Elmer, Is an offer you cannot refuse a crime? From the mob? What about from intel? Attempted market coercion is a crime. To bribe them not to buy AMD is a crime. To hang any tail on what you sell to actions re buying from a third party is a crime. Even co-op advertising money has areas to be caustious of. Bill

To: Elmer who wrote (82086)	12/6/1999 12:43:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573648

Elmer, re:<If Intel is a monopoly then AMD isn't competitive> Where did you get this hairbrained idea? Just because Intel cheats doesn't mean they have to win. Your argument is as specious as Microsoft's argument that because Netscape is now alive and well under the protection of AOL, that therefore the slimy practices they previously practiced are not punishable. AMD is competitive in spite of Intel's practices. Without these practices, such as punishing customers who sell their competitor's products, AMD would have a larger share of the market. Even outside of monopoly law, the limiting of consumer's choices by punishing companies that offer a choice, does two anti-consumer things: it limits the consumer's purchase choices and by reducing competition it raises prices. Petz