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: muzosi who wrote (213060)	10/9/2006 4:45:26 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

But there is no apiori declaration of monopoly necessary either before or after the illegal act. "Tend to create" could apply to a company that, even after illegal actions, does not yet have a monopoly. They might some time in the future, if practice allowed to continue. That's a pretty wide legal wicket for AMD. And there's the all-inclusive, prohibition of "substantially lessening competition," which could even apply to something AMD does. I think other laws use the phrase "dominant market share," don't recall which one. Petz

To: muzosi who wrote (213060)	10/9/2006 7:02:55 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 275872

muzosi I don't think being a monopoly is in any was against the law. It's the behavior of a monopoly which can violate the law.

To: muzosi who wrote (213060)	10/10/2006 3:09:11 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The Clayton Act was not used to divide Standard Oil into separate companies. The Sherman Act was used by the U S Supreme Court for that task. en.wikipedia.org The Clayton Act was not passed until later in 1914 and was designed to repair problems with the Sherman Act. "The Act was intended to prevent arrangements designed to, or which tend to, increase the cost of goods to the consumer. It was not specifically intended to prevent the dominance of an industry by a specific company, despite misconceptions to the contrary. According to Senator George Hoar, an author of the bill, any company which "got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could" would not be in violation of the act." en.wikipedia.org