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 (241515)	9/30/2007 4:22:34 AM
From: wbmw	Respond to of 275872

Re: A) Neither the US case or the EC case are about AMD's performance over the last year. No, but it can be. You showed that the laws are designed to protect healthy competition, or in other words, to ensure a level playing field against competitors. So can't Intel prove that the playing field is level, if they show that AMD's poor performance over the years has been due to their own poor management? Or to put it yet another way, suggest that a more nimble competitor than AMD could have been far more profitable and successful competing in the market, under the same conditions. I would think that would nullify any claims of illegal activity, based on what you've shown of the anti-trust acts. Re: B) Much of your argument rests on the premise that AMD's allegations and the EC's charges against Intel are all false. That's my personal belief, but we'll see what happens in court. Re: C) You once again mis-characterize one component of the allegations against Intel as simple price-drops. The allegations tailored, tiered rebates actually described in the allegations and charges are more insidious, as has been detailed here on numerous occasions (which is why your continued mis-characterization is so annoying.) By basing the rebates on metrics derived from comparative market share, i.e. designed to exclude AMD, they are inherently predatory, with no possible economic justification (which is required, by law) other than the maintenance of market power and the impedance of free trade. No one has proven that here. People have tried, but I simply don't agree with the conclusions. We should leave that one to the court room as well.