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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (212187)	10/2/2006 1:05:23 PM
From: rzborusa	Respond to of 275872

Sam, How does a vendor manage to sell goods at "inflated prices compared to the competition?" Firstly and Last (should be last) the big name has the advantage. Consider namebrand vs white box in retail. Even the Intel brand will not put the white box in the big box retailers. So, why does a component of a product have such powerful branding. Advertising etc? Sure, but that points out the OEMs dropped the ball. Or more they were stripped of the ball, to use a football metaphor. Bigness is usually some advantage, football again. The front line of players are not allowed to lock arms. This is what Intel has done withe the cooperation (coerced) of the OEMs.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (212187)	10/2/2006 3:12:41 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

re: The further absurdity is that you are accusing Intel of hurting consumers by using the mechanism of reducing prices to PC makers. LOL, ever heard of Standard Oil? en.wikipedia.org In 1909, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in federal court alleging that Standard had engaged in the following methods to continue the monopoly and restrain interstate commerce: [Manns p 11] "Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent." Petz