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: economaniack who wrote (219735)	12/8/2006 6:38:37 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I haven't researched and don't know how the courts would respond to the fact that ATI has been acquired after the alleged collusion occurred. Unless there is evidence that AMD and nVidia explicitly agreed to continue the illegal pricing regime, there is no evidence of ongoing behavior which requires a remedy. The financial beneficiaries of the behavior would be the shareholders of ATI, not the shareholders of AMD prior or post the merger) I assume that AMD remains liable for civil and criminal(unlikely) damages but again these would be hard to calculate and diffuse except for OEMs who presumably want to maintain a working relationship with AMD. You don't get off the hook for past crimes simply by being acquired.

To: economaniack who wrote (219735)	12/8/2006 8:41:04 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Respond to of 275872

>> First off all the Intellibee morons can stop with the Intel didn't but AMD did violate antitrust laws. I think your statement is false. Can you post a link to a post on this thread saying or alleging: "Intel didn't but AMD did violate antitrust laws."

To: economaniack who wrote (219735)	12/8/2006 8:56:40 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>> Unless there is evidence that AMD and nVidia explicitly agreed to continue the illegal pricing regime, there is no evidence of ongoing behavior which requires a remedy. The financial beneficiaries of the behavior would be the shareholders of ATI, not the shareholders of AMD prior or post the merger) If you are saying that AMD will not be liable for any fines that are imposed, then you are totally, absolutely and completely wrong. Look at at the companies that have gone into bankruptcy as a result of acquiring other companies (in the 1990's) that had made asbestos products 50 years ago (under completely different ownership). You can also look at sales of land that has contaminated soil. The new owner is liable for cleanup, unless he has made an indemnification clause with the seller, as a condition of buying the land. Obviously this is not a high monetary fine type of case. But if there is a fine, it would be paid by AMD, not the former shareholders of ATI. Unless AMD can successfully sue them on grounds of concealing or lying during purchase negotiation. Same would apply if refunds are required.

To: economaniack who wrote (219735)	12/9/2006 6:31:42 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Econo, very well thought out post! I have a request and a question: Request: "Intellibee morons". I've banned people for using any such words. You're respected a lot, especially on economic matters, and I see that you post here only infrequently (e.g. only posting on 5 days last 4/5 months or so), so I'm letting you off with a warning. Please don't use any such words again because you'll leave me little options. Hope I can count on your understanding. Question: The class action suits against nVidia were served only days after the subpoena's. Does this mean they were prepared in advance? Thanks, Rink Nvidia Served With 4 Purported Class-Action Suits: Message 23082842 Earlier Forbes update on AMD/Nvidia subpoena's: Message 23064026