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: fastpathguru who wrote (241444)	9/29/2007 3:29:02 AM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Again, LINK PLEASE. Please... you're not impressing me with your caps lock demands. I don't need to prove something that is fundamentally a root of the modern legal system. Laws are supposed to protect PEOPLE, plain and simple. You are trying to argue that anti-trust in particular is meant to protect a second order concept, "competition", but I am trying to point out to you that it's more fundamental than that. The MIT professor essentially says the same thing. If you protect competition, then you are protecting the consumer. So what's the difference? In this case, it would be backwards to think that the law would attempt to enforce competition just for the sake of enforcing competition. If the competitors are failing because they don't have a competitive product, then they deserve to die off until someone stronger comes into the market. You may disagree with me, but I have long thought that the AMD business model of, "Get Intel At All Costs," was one that was destined for failure. Nimble competitors who strive to get good value for their products are always more successful than ones who bet the farm on every opportunity to screw the big guy that comes their way. The bigger and more important question in my mind is whether Intel has actually harmed the consumer. If they have not harmed the consumer, and yet the competitive situation is still languishing, then I don't believe the right solution is to just give AMD a Free Pass. If Intel's business practices are sound and AMD can't win by competing fairly, then they deserve to die and get replaced. Now, you're argument is undoubtably that you think Intel has competed unfairly, that they've thrown around their market dominance to prevent AMD from having any kind of foothold. I'm not here to debate that with you. Frankly, I think it's a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours. Besides, I think the courts will ultimately decide that. What I wish to argue is the spirit of the law, and the fact that it's designed to support the consumer, and that second order concepts like "competition" may be idealized by a few opinionated people, but it's not what the laws were designed to protect.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (241444)	9/29/2007 11:38:41 AM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

You seem to believe that the thoughts of one economics professor are the only definition that matters to prove that the protection of competition is the purpose of the antitrust law. This is rather absurd. A single page article not even authored by Franklin Fisher, most certainly does not represent the unanimous and only economic theory on the purpose of antitrust laws. Antitrust law is a complex subject that evolves over time. Finding a few phrases in a shallow treatment of a subject is a poor substitute for logical thinking. You scream for links to support the idea that the purpose of antitrust laws is to protect consumers. Here is a link for you: publicknowledge.org "The enhancement of consumer welfare is widely-regarded as a fundamental purpose of the antitrust laws." see page 1 (citing works by Robert Bork who has a tad more knowledge about the law than an MIT economics professor) Since you are so hot for the views of a professor, here is a view of a different professor that the antitrust laws "foster [monopolies] by limiting competition." quebecoislibre.org An extreme view for sure, but no more extreme than the sophomoric notion that your idea is the only correct position. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.