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 (241495)	9/29/2007 6:27:50 PM
From: wbmw	Respond to of 275872

Re: It is a flawed argument, but it looks like the EU commission's members think that 80% market share is all the proof they need to impose a fine, and that a more balanced market is 50%-50%. You probably saw the interviews when they were crowing about their court victory. That would only result in punishing success, and rewarding mediocrity. If you had a perfect duopoly featuring two competitors who only release mediocre products, is that better than a strong dynamic in an 80/20 environment, where both competitors are aiming to top one another with ever more impressive products? I think I'll stand by the hope that the EU victory in the Microsoft case came from obvious differences in the situation, many of which I've already highlighted in previous posts. Of course, if all that results is a $600M fine, and then Intel can go back to business as usual, minus the discounting principles, then that's hardly something to hang one's hat on.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (241495)	9/29/2007 10:45:24 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

>> Their other argument is that Microsoft has been fined by the EU, and by association, another big company like Intel should also get fined. This argument is simply flawed It is a flawed argument, but it looks like the EU commission's members think that 80% market share is all the proof they need to impose a fine, and that a more balanced market is 50%-50%. You probably saw the interviews when they were crowing about their court victory. It is a flawed argument, but nobody is making it. Intel is being charged with their very own anticompetitive acts. Can you provide a link to anyone saying that Intel should be charged just because Microsoft was? Not only that, but the "80% market share is all the proof they need" argument is yet another strawman. Nobody is saying that, either, and you should know better, having seen the links I posted indicating that the EC's Microsoft decision is extraordinary in the extent of its reasoning and rationale. fpg