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 (252209)	5/21/2008 10:17:52 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

YES!! EXACTLY!!!!111!! AMD is claiming Intel's rebates are exclusionary and anti-competitive!!!1! And Intel is saying that AMD's higher cost structure due to mismanagement is the problem, not Intel's lower pricing or rebates. If mismanagement is allowed to force a well run company to raise their prices just so the bungling competition can remain in business then there is no reward for excellence and no punishment for incompetence. Any dominant company will have to cede market share to any competitor regardless of the competitor's business practices. HAVEN'T WE BEEN GOING OVER THE EQUALLY EFFICIENT COMPETITOR CONCEPT FOR LIKE, TWO DAYS NOW?!?!11?!? Yup and you haven't convinced anyone that any court has ever applied it to a case like this.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (252209)	5/21/2008 11:45:50 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Isn't the phrase "equally efficient rival/producer/competitor" actually found in the text of the Clayton Act or Robinson Patman? I find it peculiar that the Intel defenders rail on and on about how inefficient AMD is, and then when it is explained to them that the below-cost test is based on Intel's costs, not AMD's costs, they claim it's an untested concept. Petz

To: fastpathguru who wrote (252209)	5/21/2008 4:52:53 PM
From: rzborusa	Respond to of 275872

FPG, Some of the facts are just glaring, blinding to look at. Your paragraph below is a summation of the whole case, IMO. >>YE... NO!1!1! AMD is saying that Intel's rebates, after applying the "discount attribution standard" (and other standards too), result in prices for contested products that are below Intel's own average variable cost.<< Some here will not take just the cost of the back ended, "rebate qualifying" parts out of the average cost of all the parts. Their arguments are as simple as: "Intel has made money over the years, how could they have sold below cost". The concept is simple enough that a grade schooler could understand, assuming they didn't have a dog in the fight (litigation). Talk about having a blind spot.