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: Elmer Phud who wrote (213040)	10/9/2006 3:10:37 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 275872

I believe it is retroactive, except in some circumstances where the company enters a consent decree to settle some suit, saying they will behave in the future. But I don't pretend to be an expert on antitrust law - I had a good grounding in it, but that was 20 years ago, and I've never had any practical experience in it at all. We'll never know what Intel's lawyer's did or did not do. But the constraints of being a monopolist are tight enough so I can easily imagine the marketing folks figuring they would deal with that problem if it ever were to happen in real life rather than in theory. Most people at a company don't care what might happen five or ten years down the line - they care about their annual bonus. And as for evidence, that has to wait for discovery and for depositions under oath. Supemicro is going to have to answer something like my question under oath, and at that point we will find out something close to the truth. (Note that's a factual dispute, and so grist for the jury, not a judge). Certainly in Europe (if news reports are correct) we do have something that is starting to look like a smoking gun - an agreement with a store not to carry AMD products is a big no-no. Peter

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (213040)	10/9/2006 3:41:42 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Now let me ask you a legal question. Assume for a moment that Intel is found to be a monopoly, which I think is likely. Does the standard of conduct apply retroactively or from that point forward? If it applies retroactively, would counsel be negligent if they did not recommend that Intel conduct themselves under the presumption that they would be found to be a monopoly at some future point? It hardly matters if Intel IS a monopoly right now or not. What makes NOW so special in a trial that will be held in 2009 over conduct that allegedly took place between 2002-2005 (other than as related to ongoing conduct?) *It will be determined whether Intel was* a monopoly during the period that the lawsuit covers. Intel's lawyers should have been informing their staff of what practices were appropriate or not relative to the probability that they could be considered a monopoly at the time.*** I.e. They should have been saying, "It's highly likely that we would be considered a monopoly in the eyes of the law, so we should really practice business under the assumption that we are a monopoly." fpg For those practices that are prohibited by monopolies*, as opposed to all the anticompetitive practices that are prohibited regardless of whether a company is a monopoly or not.