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 (247723)	2/13/2008 1:48:49 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Would a European court see a difference between that construction, and this:" Probably. But the latter is not what the memo said. It said that Intel was paying them to not carry AMD-based machines. It didn't mention advertising. What you describe is legal. But that doesn't seem to be what is happening. It certainly wasn't what Media Markt said was happening. It reminds me of when AMD-based machines used to vanish from Best Buy and other retailers during the seasonally slow months...

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (247723)	2/13/2008 1:50:30 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>>Given that they have already stated that Intel was paying them to not carry AMD-based machines. Would a European court see a difference between that construction, and this: Intel will re-imburse Media Mart for cost of advertising PC's, provided that Media Mart uses those funds only for advertising Intel PC's ? Sure: With the latter, Intel would pay for Intel-based ads regardless of whether MM carried or advertized AMD systems (on their own dime.) With the former, no. Now... Can you show an agreement that looks like this, or are you just pulling it out of thin air? fpg

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (247723)	2/13/2008 4:32:19 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

re: Would a European court see a difference between that construction, and this: Intel will re-imburse Media Mart for cost of advertising PC's, provided that Media Mart uses those funds only for advertising Intel PC's ? I have to disagree with my two other "AMD defenders" here and say that if Media Mart got significantly more funds from Intel for this purpose than other retailers, the marketing funds would be illegal even if the above statement were true. It would certainly be illegal if an email stated, "We'll pay X% of your marketing budget for Intel PC's if you don't sell any [or advertise any] AMD PC's, and Y% (of the same) if you do, where X>Y." But I doubt Intel is that stupid. Nevertheless, if the Intel-only retailers get more as a group than the mixed retailers, it's probably sufficient evidence to claim that they are "loyalty rebates intended to maintain a dominant market position," even if there's no evidence linking the higher rates to "loyalty." Petz