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: fastpathguru who wrote (226204)	2/17/2007 1:21:50 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Guys, you have a couple major problems with your legal analysis. 1 AMD alleged lots of fantasies in their complaint but never alleged that Intel used different discount schedules for different customers. 2 AMD never alleged any violation of the Robson Patman Act. Perhaps AMD's lawyers had a better grasp of the facts and the law than you do. 3 The same goods can be sold to different customers under a "meeting competition defense". Certainly, the Robinson Patman expets on this board can explain how this works.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (226204)	2/17/2007 3:21:45 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

FPG, > 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? Anyone who wins in a free market capitalism is by default a "monopoly." Competition is good ... until someone wins. In other words, there really isn't much of a difference. Being a monopoly isn't illegal, but using certain inherent advantages of a monopoly to crush competitors is. Where do you draw the line? It all depends on the judge. All AMD needs is a sympathetic judge and they'll have at least some measure of victory already in the bag. Maybe they ought to ensure that the liberal 9th Circus Court of Appeals eventually gets the case. Tenchusatsu