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: aleph0 who wrote (165776)	7/16/2005 4:14:22 AM
From: rupert1	Respond to of 275872

Ms. Fox, the antitrust expert, expects the case would turn on whether Intel can show that its marketing practices benefit consumers. They certainly benefit AMD consumers.

To: aleph0 who wrote (165776)	7/16/2005 7:59:52 AM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

n 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. I think that's the dilemma that Intel will find itself in. They probably postured themselves very aggressively, but on the legal side of that aggressive line (in their minds). Then a case like this comes along and sharply draws the line a little bit in a manner that makes the Intc posture to be on the illegal side of the line. Oops. Too late to change now. That's how one can reconcile the fact that Intel would not be stupid enough to put themselves into a bad position with the marketing practices (The Elmer argument that Intel has an army of lawyers- how would they let Intel commit an illegal act). TG

To: aleph0 who wrote (165776)	7/16/2005 4:56:33 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

That 2003 LePage decision definitely changed the landscape. Apparently Intel's compliance department chose to ignore it, or they were over-ruled by higher-ups. I would love to see some of the internal emails discussing LePage at Intel, because there had to be a few honest lawyers there who thought Intel should change their rebate schemes. Certainly no coincidence that AMD picked lawyers who helped win that decision. The volume-triggered all-or-nothing rebates/incentives will be easy to prove, as will harm to consumers. It is certainly true that AMD's average selling price to these OEMs is well below Intel's. If the all-or-nothing rebate was eliminated it is clear that Intel would be forced to just lower the price, and they would buy more AMD CPUs, at a lower price than the Intel CPUs that they replace. Petz