To: Elmer Phud who wrote (254993 ) 8/1/2008 12:10:14 AM From: fastpathguru Read Replies (1) | Respond to >In this particular case, "competition" and "the competition" are one and the same, namely AMD. process . "The competition", from the perspective of competitor X, is the set of other competitors that competitor X faces during competition.process may benefit a/the competitor(s) as a side effect but the ultimate goal is to protect the consumer. (Versus your nauseatingly repetitive argument that the end goal is to protect "the competition.")stronger .>As consumers have been enjoying lower prices and higher performance, the EU's actions would therefore be intended to protect AMD by forcing consumers to pay more if Intel can't offer volume rebates. loyalty rebates. I thought we've been over this before, and yet you persist with this bogus argument.>How you can claim that there is no basis to call that "at the expense of the consumer" is a real head scratcher. >The consumers want Intel products, otherwise AMD would simply match Intel's rebate program. simply just don't get it. You are not operating in the same universe as the parties to this case.>They can't because demand won't support the volume. >If it could all this would be moot. In the EU, having a competitive "competitor" is apparently not a requirement for having "competition" and it once again supports statements from the EU that say a Monopoly will not be tolerated.
