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 (242072)	10/8/2007 6:07:12 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<What happened in 2002> LePage vs. 3M, in 2003, court of appeals reaffirmed original jury verdict (2001? 2002?) against 3M. These posts contain a bunch of links to check out: Message 21499145 The lawyers AMD hired were involved in LePage case: Message 21510859 LePage withstood appeal all the way to U.S. Supreme Court Here's an excellent post by fastpathguru that I will quote in the entirety: Message 21511096 Exactly. IMHO... The 3M case didn't get effectively blessed by the USSC until '03. What makes this case so important is that it sets precedent in expanding the range of behavior that can be considered illegal into territory that was unclear before. I.e. the line you had to watch out not to cross was very blurry when it came to above-cost-on-average predatory pricing. [Petz clarification: he's talking about the case where the average cost per CPU for a quarter is above production cost, but the marginal cost to a customer for the batch of CPU's that triggers the rebate is way below production cost.] This case clarifies where that line is somewhat, and it's clearly pushed in a direction that doesn't favor a monopolizer. To me, it looks like this AMD suit could have far more impact on precedent than the 3M case as the allegations are much stronger (IMHO). For instance, AMD goes into detail in the complaint about how Intel's rebates create conditions that are impossible to compete against even for an equally-efficient competitor, while LEPAGE's was criticised for not doing so. (AMD of course needs to back the allegations up with substance.) fpg ---------------------end quote In general, EU courts were making decisions like LePage several years before it. Petz