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 (237753)	7/31/2007 1:47:53 AM
From: rzborusa	Respond to of 275872

WBMW, re; Since prices dropped significantly, while function, performance and choice increased during the years of alleged violation, it seems there will be a defense for Intel, and it is far from an adverse prospect. Hah, that has happened throughout the industry. Gordon Moore or not. Ha ha ha. You are probably right, the incompetent, power brokerage, judiciary might just see it that way. A true Classic.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (237753)	7/31/2007 1:51:02 AM
From: Joe_P	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"MUNICH; Germany — EC antitrust regulators have concluded that Intel has abused its dominant position in the microprocessor market. The legal proceeding could end with a billion-euro fine for Intel, media reports here speculate." I don't know what you're arguing, they've already found Intel guilty. And about that snippet you posted, it's possible that anti-competitive behaviour and acting as a monopoly would be detremental to the consumer's interests. It's still up in the air at this point, and discounts are nice for the consumer. But then again, a behemoth of a company like Intel should have been able to crush AMD ages ago if they just bothered to make a better product, instead of keeping it slow and steady and milking money out of people with 800MHz PIII's at $1000 a pop. Regardless, I'm just going to say that the behaviour is detremental in this case, so don't bother to tell me otherwise. The stock price hasn't plunged because no one seems to care about the verdict. I'm assuming the best case for Intel, as is the market, and at worst the commission will tell them "stop it!" It says they can face a billion-euro fine, but I can't imagine anyone willing to do more then giving Intel a slap on the wrist. I mean c'mon: "What do you have inside?" That's right... Intel, baby. Love it. Good thing they have awesome marketing. With that stuff you can brainwash whoever you want be anti-competitive as you feel and slaughter all the people you can see. It works in times of war. ;)

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (237753)	7/31/2007 3:06:16 AM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Sarmad: Since prices dropped significantly, while function, performance and choice increased during the years of alleged violation, it seems there will be a defense for Intel, and it is far from an adverse prospect. Only in the eyes of an Intel booster. In the eyes of the public having been forced into buying expensive slow hot P4s instead of cheap cool fast K8s, they have a far different take on the matter. Just ask the secretary in the next cubicle. Her PC has one of those hot slow P4s in it. She complains mightly about how loud the P4 cooling fan gets when shes working. I solved it by merely removing the side cover. Now the fan doesn't get loud because it doesn't have to work as hard to keep that hot CPU warm. She got hurt because they got a 2.8Ghz P4 that is slower than the 2GHz A64 machine in the next cubicle. Its nice and quiet even though he does more computation heavy things like spreadsheets and simulations. The identification of competitive harm requires spelling out a consistent business behaviour based on sound economics and supported by facts and empirical evidence. Sarmad's feel doesn't count. % based on a company sales has no economic basis (sound or otherwise). Part (c) specifically excludes treating customers differently. You can't include each company's sales or previous purchases because that inherently treats companies differently. In my examples company B bought more than A and should receive a the same discount or a higher one than company A. If it doesn't, then whatever schedule used is flawed because company B bought far more than A. You can justify that more sales in a period are cheaper to handle than fewer. Its known as economies of scale. You can't justify that selling 90K to company A are cheaper to supply per CPU than 800K to company B. The way most companies do this is with a universal discount schedule solely based on sound economic reasons. Also did you notice that in the EU, a dominant company has to prove that its discount schedule is based on sound economics? Not where the government has to prove that it isn't. So Intel has to prove that its practices are compliant to EU law. Sewell's statement shows that (c) has been violated. Pete

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (237753)	7/31/2007 5:06:23 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

AMD's ASP's are $50 lower than Intel's. If Intel's illegal actions resulted in 50M fewer AMD-based PC's being sold, consumers were bilked of at least 2.5 billion dollars as a result. The dollar rebates Intel gave to companies that refused to sell AMD were not given back to consumers in the form of lower prices. No, the prices stayed >$50 higher than if the OEM's had used AMD processors, and Intel forced the OEM's to use the funds for more advertising. Petz

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (237753)	7/31/2007 5:07:47 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

AMD's ASP's are $50 lower than Intel's. If Intel's illegal actions resulted in 50M fewer AMD-based PC's being sold, consumers were bilked of at least 2.5 billion dollars as a result. The dollar rebates Intel gave to companies that refused to sell AMD were not given back to consumers in the form of lower prices. No, the prices stayed >$50 higher than if the OEM's had used AMD processors, and Intel forced the OEM's to use the funds for more advertising. Petz

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (237753)	7/31/2007 5:08:07 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

AMD's ASP's are $50 lower than Intel's. If Intel's illegal actions resulted in 50M fewer AMD-based PC's being sold, consumers were bilked of at least 2.5 billion dollars as a result. The dollar rebates Intel gave to companies that refused to sell AMD were not given back to consumers in the form of lower prices. No, the prices stayed >$50 higher than if the OEM's had used AMD processors, and Intel forced the OEM's to use the funds for more advertising. Petz