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: Elmer Phud who wrote (252210)	5/21/2008 10:12:00 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I guess it all boils down to the cost standard used by the Court. There have been several attempts here to claim that the EEC may be the standard but frankly despite numerous claims no one has found a single instance where the court has actually used that standard in a similar case. For small values of "similar", maybe. I just showed you how an EEC test has been established as precedent in the 9th circuit (called the "discount attribution" standard) for testing whether a (bundled) rebate is exclusionary: mofo.com The only thing different in the AMD case, as applies to their rebate allegations, is that the rebate is on a single product vs. a bundle, a difference AMD claims that it can show is effectively insignificant given the details of this specific case. And AMD's rebate allegations will not be viewed in isolation, but as just one component of a collection of anti-competitive tactics used by Intel. fpg