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: Saturn V who wrote (241314)	9/27/2007 4:24:16 AM
From: amdobserver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

There are more GSM and UMTS phones than CDMA and CDMA2000 phones. Qualcomm patents and chipsets are mainly for CDMA and CDMA2000 systems. Qualcomm market share is less than 40% of the celluar market. Intel owns more than 70% of the x86 CPU market share.

To: Saturn V who wrote (241314)	9/27/2007 5:46:11 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Saturn: Being able to swim against the current does not mean that there is no current. This is the same logic fallacy used by Intel boosters to deny the facts. A monopoly isn't defined by how well competitors can compete, but the percentage of the market sold by the target. Targets always want the widest market definition that they can get away with while the competitors choose the narrowest one. The trouble is that a diverse company has many markets and can be a monopoly within a product line while in others, it isn't even close. Take Ford for instance, it has a monopoly for auto windshield glass (Visteon is definitely not abusive being used by almost everyone and is well liked (yes its profitable, but not too much)), but its not one in the car or truck market. Similarly Intel is a monopoly in x86 CPUs, it wasn't a monopoly in web hosting, when it tried to wriggle into that market, one in TV projection display devices during its time there or one in flash. Intel is not being taken to task because its a monopoly, but that it is an abusive monopoly. Pete

To: Saturn V who wrote (241314)	9/28/2007 1:32:14 PM
From: morpheus4567	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"demonstrates that we do not have a monopoly." Where do you work?

To: Saturn V who wrote (241314)	9/28/2007 3:35:22 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: I love monopolies when I can spot them early on !! There's nothing wrong with Monopolies, in general. The modern global economy is built upon capitalistic intents, and monopolies are a natural byproduct. Under some conditions, a monopoly can become harmful to consumers by charging high prices, or forcing non-compelling products that consumers are forced to use in the absence of an alternative. In these cases, I agree that it's the government's job to product consumers from such harm. Most people on this thread know that Intel is a monopoly, and they naturally assume that this means they are harmful. That, however, is not a natural conclusion. When governments get involved, they have the duty to research and understand the market dynamics in play, the kinds of products being offered, the prices these products are fixed at, and the trends in technology from year to year. As I look at the PC processor market, it's hard to conclude that it's anything but healthy and beneficial to consumers. Performance over the past several decades has been exponential, while at the same time getting cheaper year over year. When power and lack of 64-bit processing became a concern to consumers several years ago, AMD (and also TMTA) provided competition to Intel to deliver these features to the consumer. That's what one would expect in an environment with healthy competition. A harmful monopolistic environment, on the other hand, would have ensured that Intel continue to deliver high power and 32-bit CPUs in spite of desire for competitive products. That didn't happen. I think a lot of people confuse a harmful monopoly with their expectation that Intel could become a harmful monopoly if AMD ever went away, and therefore they need to be punished. That's kind of like saying a person with a tendency for violence must be put in jail, because he might kill his wife if she ever cheated on him. That might be desirable by some people, but it's not how the law should work. The biggest arguments from this thread on Intel's behavior involves their discounting programs, as well as their supposed threats to prevent AMD from establishing Opteron several years ago. In terms of the discounting, in order to prove that this is illegal, AMD would have to prove that it was harmful to consumers, which is a difficult thing to do when discounting essentially results in passing on cost savings to the consumer. The structure of the rebates is debatable, but that will get resolved depending on the regional interpretation of the law, and if Intel is required to change their discounting method, then they will have to do so. In terms of the threats, I remain skeptical that these ever happened, but I'm sure the truth will come out either way when the trial goes to court. If Intel truly threatened their customers during a time when these customers had no alternative, then that seems to me like a punishable offense. I have never debated that. However, I think it needs to be proven, first, and testimony from first hand accounts will be necessary to do this. After all is said and done, the state of Intel's future will continue to be a debated topic. I don't think there will ever be a single accepted doctrine for the cans and cannots of being a monopoly. The law has to evolve to account for different cases. Intel's rebate system may create a new precedent, for example. On the other hand, the courts may find that Intel has every right to operate as they've been operating. After all, if the consumer has not been harmed, then Intel is not a harmful monopoly. I'll leave it at that.