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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (237699)	7/30/2007 3:17:13 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Sarmad: Basing it on what the customer bought before is just as illegal as a percentage of their business. Example, there are two companies A and B located in the same area. A sells about 100K CPUs annually and B sells 1 million CPUs annually. They both used to buy 90% of that from Intel. Legal way is 50,000 $$$$$, 100,000 $$$$ and 500,000 $$$. A buys 90K and pays $$$$$ and B buys 800K and pays $$$. B had an off year yet still gets a good discount over what A got. Illegal way, 50% is $$$$$, 90% is $$$$ and 100% is $$$ of companies sales. A buys 90K and pays $$$$, B buys 800K and pays $$$$$. B pays more than A, yet bought 8.8 times as much. Can't be justified by using any economic reasons. Same volume must mean same discount. Greater volume means same or higher discount (lower price). Another illegal way, 50% of previous $$$$$, 90% is $$$$, 100% is $$$. Company A buys 90K at $$$ and B buys 800K at $$$$$. B pays a lot more than A, even buying 8.8 times as much. Again, can't be justified. Same volume must mean same discount. Greater volume means same or higher discount (lower price). Either way you take Sewell's statement, it just described an illegal discounting scheme. You can't set discounts by the individual company and justify using legal economic reasons. Pete BTW Petz, Bill Gates made such dumb statements during MS trial. That is one of the reasons why they lost. The fine and remedy were what was far too lenient. Breaking up the company would have been the proper result given the trial.