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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (162662)	6/28/2005 10:13:23 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TGP, I stated my reason for not trusting US antitrust cases (MS case resulting in verdict without real punishment - a fine that would have cost MS real $$, or a breakup - there was no real punishment). Hence the US legal system does not always works perfecty for these high level antitrust suits; for the reasons I stated it failed to work from my perspective with the MS antitrust case. This AMD antitrust case is in the same league... Both AT&T and IBM punishment for anticompetitive behaviour resulted in imo much better control over their future competitive behaviour than there is control over MS competitive behaviour now. So it's not that I'm saying it goes wrong everytime. I am saying though that MS' punishment was not in accordance with the verdict because it didn't cost them anything substantial. From my perspective as well as at least a reasonable amount of others that is due to political influences in legal proceedings - something that is wrong in my opinion (I don't think any part of the world is excluded from this, but do think it is more difficult in some other parts of the world because the legal systems differ as a result of different cultures). The possible political influence was well published around the time, e.g. in the WSJ, to the extent that punishment in the MS case would hinge on which president would be elected. Whether you believe political influence has or hasn't been used in the MS case, there is no other credible reason I've heard that MS got away without a punishment that hasn't cost them anything substantial. If you can provide that credible reason that would restore my faith in the US legal system somewhat. I highly doubt though that there is such a reason. Regards, Rink