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 (252217)	5/21/2008 1:00:40 PM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 275872

are all x-86 CPU's a single product ? Is Xeon a different product from Conroe, and placing them in same rebate bundle exposes that rebate to the LePage curse ? I do not know if Intel bundles their products together or not. Even if Intel did so, it would not fall into the LePage Trap. LePage only made transparent tape,while 3M made a line of several products. It was the extra discounting of the 3M products,in which LePage did not have a presence, an exclusionary bundle. AMD participates in all x-86 segments defined so far: desktop, server and laptop. IMHO, bundling together such products would not constitute an exclusionary bundle,since AMD participates in all 3 segments. But Law is all about common sense interpretation of the statutes. Does a bundle of 3.5Ghz Penryn with a 2.0GHz Penryn constitute an exclusionary bundle ? Not in my opinion. But AMD could argue that since AMD cannot supply the equivalent of the 3.5GHz part today, a bundling of the 2.0GHz and 3.5GHz part together is exclusionary for AMD. If you go down this line of thought you end up with a can of worms. If they are different products,how do you calculate the marginal cost of the 2GHZ part vs the marginal cost of the 3.5GHZ part, which are the same identical chip but have different performance bins ? A sensible court should not consider them as different products. Subpeonas on all 486 witnesses would be a long drawn out mess. Most likely the court will only allow a smaller number. We could form a betting pool on guessing the exact number of witnesses who will take the stand or will be deposed. That would be a lot more fun than some of the other debates on this thread.