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 (252235)	5/21/2008 3:38:47 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> AMD will attempt to divide OEM's demand into contestable and un-contestable componenets, Now I have another reading assignment. To see if any court has accepted the idea that the very same product can be thus divided, and trigger anti-trust sanctions. At this moment (of ignorance) I think this argument has a smaller chance to prevail than a snow flake. But I'll look to see if there is precedent. The seeming easy rebuttal is that AMD could just offer the same quantity that Intel is offering. As long as AMD's production capacity could meet a large order, that argument melts away. If Intel's volume trigger is a million units, well, AMD makes multiples of that. So why don't they bid on a million units ? AMD's argument is even easier to rebut for small PC makers. If Intel tailors a rebate to 10,000 units, so why can't AMD offer 10k units at a lower price and take the whole account ? Surely AMD doesn't have to worry about selling below cost!

To: fastpathguru who wrote (252235)	5/21/2008 4:08:01 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

fpg No, I think that AMD will attempt to divide OEM's demand into contestable and un-contestable componenets, and the rebates should be applied to Intel's sales into the contestable component a-la the discount attribution standard, resulting in below-cost pricing for that component. Assuming for a moment that the Judge accepts this approach, how do you know it will result in below cost pricing?

To: fastpathguru who wrote (252235)	5/21/2008 9:15:14 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

Such an excellent post that I greatly miss the "voting" feature here! /Petz

To: fastpathguru who wrote (252235)	5/22/2008 12:40:00 AM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 275872

AMD's allegations pertain to volume-based loyalty rebates, not bundle-based loyalty rebates I do not think that will fly at all. The business of contested vs uncontested market is just plain silly. Whatever I read during the last few weeks says that US courts have always upheld volume or loyalty discounts of any kind as legal and good for the consumer. The obvious exception is when the goods are sold below the marginal cost ( or the average variable cost) of the supplier. Lepage involved multiproduct bundles where the competitor was excluded because the competitor did not sell other products provided by 3M, and in order to compete would have to sell at a marginal cost below that of 3M. No wonder AMD wants to depose 486 witnesses, in order to come up with a more substantial case. So far there is no evidence of threats of being "pounded into guacamole", etc. It looks like a very weak case until some solid evidence of threats or other evidence shows up.