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: Windsock who wrote (226224)	2/17/2007 6:45:24 PM
From: fastpathguru	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. Wrong. Paragraph 60 of AMD's complaint: "Intel intentionally sets a rebate trigger at a level of purchases it knows to constitute a dominant percentage of a customer’s needs. It is able to develop discriminatory, customer-by-customer unit or dollar targets that lock that percentage (without ever referencing it) because industry publications accurately forecast and track anticipated sales" amd.com 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. AMD alleges violations of the Clayton Act, which the Robson Patman Act amends. Oops, not doing so good. 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. "Meeting", not "Excluding." Under the "meeting competition" defense, a competitor is allowed to sell at below cost, but only to match, not beat, the price of a more efficient (thus with lower costs) competitor's equivalent product. See section 2b of the Clayton Act. With volume bundling arrangements (as AMD alleges Intel used) tuned to each competitor's purchasing volume requirements, the price of units beyond the target volume is far below cost. Ouch, 0 for 3. Not too good. fpg

To: Windsock who wrote (226224)	2/17/2007 8:10:05 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Windsock: 1 AMD alleged lots of fantasies in their complaint but never alleged that Intel used different discount schedules for different customers. Wrong! It was in the different profits slide of the reasons for the lawsuit. Only Dell made significant profits and Dell got the biggest incentive payments. It also was in the HP portion as well. You just don't want to see that Intel violated the Robison-Patman laws. TOUGH! 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. Wrong! Some of their arguments are direct applications of the Robinson-Patman laws. I don't know of any Robson Patman Acts. Was there even a Congressman or Senator Robson during the period in question (The Great Depression (1929-1941))? 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. Perhaps you should read the overview and look at the burden of proof required for such a defense and its applicability. THe latter is very limited and some of the sections don't even allow it, particularly those in having customer specific discount schedules. Cumulative or "First Dollar" discounts are not even allowed in cases of competitive defense as the competitor sells equally to all customers thus the discounts must apply equally to all customers. All AMD has to show is that such discounts effectively reduce competition and Intel violated the Robinson-Patman Laws, Better read up on the Robinson-Patman laws before spouting such inaccurate fantasies. BTW, what are "expets"? If you mean "experts", perhaps you need to use a spell checker before posting. There is even one in SI's post previewer. Like I said, "Read it and weep!" Pete