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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (226198)	2/16/2007 9:47:17 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I suppose the fact that any time Intel makes a deal with a customer that differs from another deal in any minute way, that should be considered "illegal" because Intel is only trying to strengthen its own leadership position. Well DUH, of course any successful company is going to do that. LOL, you're convinced that Intel can "interpret" its way out of a prima facia antitrust violation. Can you tell me what the difference between "trying to strengthen its own leadership position" with exclusionary and discriminatory rebates and "tend[ing] to create a monopoly" with the same? FYI: o Robinson-Patman Act Section 2(a) ?? It shall be unlawful for any person • engaged in commerce • to discriminate in price • between different purchasers • of commodities • of like grade and quality • where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States and • where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them. Note that it explicitly says "effect", which means it simply doesn't matter what Intel's reasoning is behind some practice that has this effect. fpg

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (226198)	2/16/2007 9:48:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Tench: JFTC called Intel on it. EU called Intel on it. Heck the overview was by the California Bar which is where both companies headquarters are located. Those are not second guessing. Intel supporters and you are trying to make little of it. Sorry, that is not going to work. Robinson-Patman law doesn't allow for treating resellers preferentially. Intel has to prove that there is a valid legal reason for it. So far all the reasons implied or otherwise are expressly not allowed. In fact, cumulative discounts for a period are disallowed. And if the act is repeated, the burden of proof that this was required goes up. Once may be relatively easy to explain. Twice is much harder. Over ten times and to multiple different resellers is extremely hard. And even if you get past all that, then there is the proportional requirements. If HP bought 90% of Dell's CPU volumes and revenues, HP should have received 90% of Dell's payments. HP did not get $900 million from Intel each year (90%). Lenovo's $22 million mean that they only bought 8.8% (annualized (x4)) of Dell over the same period? Sorry the proportions are off here as well, so they also didn't proportionally apply the discounts, rebates and payments. Heck, the profitability differences shows a strong preference all by itself. And it would be illegal, even if AMD didn't exist. The Antitrust implications just make it easier to prove these were illegal and that damages not only need to be paid to AMD but, to all the non favored competitors. And trebled because more than 3 separate acts occurred. The "I am legal" defense doesn't work when you have been pulled over for weaving across lanes, driving down the middle of the road, having difficulty controlling you direction just because you are talking on a hands free cellphone. Arguing about it doesn't keep you from getting a ticket for inattentive driving, driving too fast for conditions, improper lane changes and not wearing your seat belt, not to mention, resisting arrest. Pete

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (226198)	2/16/2007 10:27:25 PM
From: rzborusa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tenchu, One Question: Would it be fair for a dominant producer to create a custom backend discount for each customer, based on a competitor's sales to that customer? another-- One Question: If the above dominant producer was doing so, would they not obscure their intentions (other variables, timing of purchases, advertising, product mix etc)? Intel faces world wide competition ... er, all of Intel's competitor's equals effectively just one company, AMD. The above further narrows the dominant producer's focus and intentions. Intel has monopoly power. Intel's discount rebates were hidden. Intel has received an Award for Integrity.. Any anti competitive effects were unintentional, of course. Perhaps Intel's innocence should mandate some oversight board to guide and protect them from their own naievette. Too bad they didn't get an award for Open Fair Trade, aw shucks.