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 (219763)	12/8/2006 9:30:26 PM
From: economaniack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I am saying that FTC regulators rarely seek fines in Antitrust cases, and I can't imagine their pursuing such against AMD for actions taken by ATI before the acquisition. Your examples are not on point. Asbestos liability is a civil issue. Haliburton acquired the liability of Johns Mansville to the thousands of workers that had been injured by exposure to asbestos. They did not face government actions to remediate or punish the behavior of JM. Similarly a seller who knowingly sold contaminated land would indeed be legally liable, but in no case would the purchaser face criminal sanction for having been defrauded. You don't seem to recognize the distinction between tort claims and potential fines imposed by a regulatory agency. I doubt AMD could undo the purchase at this point, but I suppose given enough evidence of wrongdoing by ATI they might try. More likely they would go after the ATI founder who presumably directly participated in any such violations, and has very deep pockets as well as now a huge block of AMD stock. I suppose one extra complication of all this is the potential impact on Orton, who would tie the behavior to AMD if it is proven and he remains in place. e

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (219763)	12/8/2006 9:49:41 PM
From: gzubeck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

So what your saying is that because Intel has 40% of the graphics market (and could at any time have eagerly developed their own product improvements with their own capital) are caught flat footed and stupid again. It must be that AMD/NVIDIA created some kind of insurmountable blockade against Intel/Other graphics chip manufacturers...Are there not a lot of other players with deep pockets that could easily rectify this situation if need be...(being too good is legal ya know) I would think that if there were vast profits being made that there could be some kind of argument to be made. But given the fact that there were only two high end graphics manufacturers that faced similar cost structures that things could look like price fixing. I would hope there is a paper trail here or numerous key witnesses...Inquiring minds would like to know....