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: combjelly who wrote (237500)	7/27/2007 11:57:22 PM
From: graphicsguru	Respond to of 275872

"For example, Coke can sign an exclusive deal with McDonalds. Is an Intel exclusive with Techmart worse than a Coke exclusive with McDonalds? Not obvious." For one, McD's approached Coke about the deal, not vice versa I don't think antitrust law cares about this distinction. Because they used to pay retailers to limit shelf space for competitors and do many of the things that Intel is accused of. Does anyone know the legal principles that describe the circumstances under which exclusive dealing is allowed? I can see that limiting shelf space is indeed different, and that's more like what is alleged with Techmart. But is the Coke/McDonalds thing different from an Intel/Sony exclusive? I guess my point is that exclusive dealing is not per se a violation of antitrust laws, so that makes it harder to establish a violation, and less likely to result in the kind of damages that would save AMD. But I'm interested in the details of the Cola wars. They might shed some light on the subject. Did any of the smaller competitors denied shelf space ever see a dime of the fines levied on Coke or Pepsi?