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: misen who wrote (226382)	2/19/2007 2:24:15 PM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

Wasn't the basis for the 3M-LePage decision section 2 of Sherman Antitrust for exclusionary behavior? And therefore the "above-costs" consideration of RPA proposed by 3M was not addressed? Indeed. It's an academic discussion anyways, as AMD is making claims under Sherman Act section 2 (+ Clayton Act) as well, (using LePage's victorious legal team no less): PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, AMD PRAYS THIS COURT: A. Find that Intel is wrongfully maintaining its monopoly in the x86 Microprocessor Market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and award AMD treble damages in an amount to be proven at trial, pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). However, there's this little nugget from the 3rd Circuit's review of the case... omm.com """ 3M reiterated its argument before the en banc panel that its conduct was lawful as a matter of law because it never sold its tape below cost, relying primarily on the Supreme Court's decision in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993). Rejecting that argument, the court first noted that Brooke Group involved a Robinson-Patman Act claim, and not a Section 2 claim. The court further held that even if Brooke Group stood for the proposition that a company's pricing practices are lawful so long as its prices are above cost, there was nothing in the Brooke Group decision that suggested it applies to a monopolist: "3M is a monopolist; a monopolist is not free to take certain actions that a company in a competitive (or even oligopolistic) market may take, because there is no market constraint on a monopolist's behavior." """ Edit: Also, there's nothing in the Clayton Act or Robinson Patman Act that says it applies only to below-cost pricing, i.e. dumping (but that would be a prima facia violation.) Where it mentions below-cost pricing, its for cases in which it's specifically allowed, such as when matching (but not beating) a more efficient competitor's prices. AFAIK & IANAL... fpg