To: fastpathguru who wrote (241490 ) 9/29/2007 6:23:14 PM From: wbmw Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872 Re: Sigh... I'll just post and highlight the Wikipedia content then, since you can't seem to follow a link. You obviously put forth a lot of effort to highlight the relevant pieces, so let me give you the courtesy of getting right to the point. From your post:Forms of abuse relating directly to pricing include price exploitation. It is difficult to prove at what point a dominant firm's prices become "exploitative" and this category of abuse is rarely found. In one case however, a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices, and this was justified on the basis that prices of funeral services outside the region could be compared.[76] A more tricky issue is predatory pricing. This is the practice of dropping prices of a product so much that in order one's smaller competitors cannot cover their costs and fall out of business. The Chicago School (economics) considers predatory pricing to be unlikely.[77] However in France Telecom SA v. Commission[78] a broadband internet company was forced to pay €10.35 million for dropping its prices below its own production costs. It had "no interest in applying such prices except that of eliminating competitors"[79] and was being crossed subsidised to capture the lion's share of a booming market. One last category of pricing abuse is price discrimination.[80] An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export your company's sugar, but not to Irish customers who are selling their goods in the same market as you are in.[81] I think the subject of predatory pricing is among the most hotly debated topics. There are obviously different schools of thought on what's acceptable, versus what's taboo. In the case of Microsoft, it's easier to prove that they are subsidizing their Media Player development with sales from their Operating Systems sales. So giving away the product for free hurts competitors, because no one can afford to beat that price (obviously!). I think Intel's case is far more subtle. For one, Intel is discounting the pricing of their main cash cow, microprocessors. They have therefore no other means to subsidize the lost revenue. If they were selling at a loss, then it would be easier to point the finger, but all AMD has to argue are economies of scale, and the fact that Intel's manufacturing network gives them a low cost advantage that competitors can't match. However, one thing that will hurt this argument are all the pre-emptive price cuts that AMD employed along with Intel's cuts throughout the year. They forced Intel to get more aggressive to win back share. AMD certainly can't argue that they "need" 30% of the market to be sustainable, because they've posted profitable earnings with much less than 30% of the market. You can't prove predatory pricing for AMD's downfall if they failed due to their own mistakes. There's definitely a debatable situation here, where one could argue that Intel's tactics are similar to those of previous examples (such as in your link above), but in order to actually be predatory, it implies that a healthy and nimble competitor wouldn't be able to make any money at a given price point. It doesn't count if the competitor is slow and dimwitted, thereby hanging themselves due to their own incompetence. Anti-trust law doesn't punish the larger competitor when the smaller competitor fails due to a poor business plan. That's what I meant earlier when I argued the spirit of the law. It's not just designed to protect competition. It's designed to protect competitors who would otherwise be capable of winning a fair match. I think AMD has hurt themselves a lot over the past year with their rhetoric and business decisions. Proving incompetence may be a reasonable tactic from the defense. Do you think AMD is prepared to defend against that?