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: Petz who wrote (165772)	7/16/2005 4:02:25 AM
From: aleph0	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Goof find from "fastpathguru" on the Yahoo board : All the antitrust ammunition you need.. by: fastpathguru 07/15/05 07:40 pm Msg: 1211565 of 1211662 ...is right here. Remember that 3M case I stumbled upon? Well... finwin.com """ Advanced Micro Devices Files Antitrust Suit Against Intel For Worldwide Coercion Of Customers From Dealing With AMD; Expects Case To Go To Trial In Late 2006 ... Ms. Fox, the antitrust expert, expects the case would turn on whether Intel can show that its marketing practices benefit consumers. ... In 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with LePages Inc. in an antitrust case against 3M Co. over private-label transparent tape. The judges ruled against 3M's "bundled rebates," which offered incentives to customers who purchased 3M product lines in addition to its tape. Charles Diamond, an attorney for AMD at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, said its allegations are very similar to LePage's, noting that the same appeals court could be the final arbiter of AMD's case. """ Rest assured that the AMD team is fully prepared; They dealt directly with the LePage's v. 3M case: omm.com """ # In 2004, O'Melveny partner Patrick Lynch argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD"), a major U.S. microchip manufacturer, in the AMD v. Intel case, which involved the authority of U.S. courts to order discovery to be used in European Community competition-law proceedings. # O'Melveny filed an amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of major U.S manufacturers in connection with the petition for certiorari in 3M v. LePage's, which presents the question whether prices can ever be deemed predatory when they are above the manufacturer's costs. """ omm.com 6.htm Here is the text of the judgement in the 3M antitrust case that withstood appeal all the way up to the US Supreme Court: omm.com ges_3d_Cir_en_banc.pdf Read it. Arm yourself with knowledge. fpg PS: LePage's was awarded _$68M_ for 3M's antitrust violations over _Scotch Tape._

To: Petz who wrote (165772)	7/16/2005 7:47:19 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 275872

How much will it cost them to buy 0.1N more CPUs from AMD? How much will it cost them to buy 0.1N more CPUs from Intel? Do you honestly think this SHOULD be legal? Do you honestly think Elmo COULD do the math? THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Petz who wrote (165772)	7/16/2005 1:39:35 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz Do you honestly think this SHOULD be legal? I'm not the person to answer that question, and neither are you. I don't have the background and neither do you. If those 2 things actually took place then you can be quite certain that Intel's team of anti-trust lawyers thought it was legal when they instructed Intel how to structure their contracts. How people here can be so dumb as to think Intel acted in a vacuum is beyond me. The contracts were structured by the best legal experts in the business. You remind me of a losing Football team arguing about a certain formation in the middle of the game. The leading team was told it was legal but you are arguing if it should be legal. You want the game stopped and points awarded to you so the game will be "fair". If you don't get at least a 30% Score Segment Share then you're sure the other team is cheating. I think you will find out that the "formation" was perfectly legal and like it or not Intel played by the rules. If the rules turn out to be unfair in the true sense of the word then let Congress change the rules, but not retroactively.