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 (255001)	8/1/2008 1:36:03 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Oh please... Is this really necessary? AMD is the only competitor. If you are protecting competition, you're protecting AMD. I said that AMD benefits as a side effect of protecting the process of competition. Why oh why can't you tell the difference between a general rule and the effects of the application of that general rule in a specific case? Is it because you're in love with your self-admitted employer Intel perhaps? Yes it does when you realize that the EU can not tolerate a dominate supplier. They've said so and you seem to agree. They want to protect the market from an abusive dominant supplier, an ideal I wholeheartedly agree with. This is a lame way of disputing something you have no other response for. It's a fact. If customers demanded AMD products then AMD could match Intel's pricing. The fact that customers don't want any more than a smattering of AMD products is the whole problem. Manufacturers don't want to give up their volume discounts for a small percentage of AMD products they would have trouble selling. If they could sell AMD products and make money they'd tell Intel to go pound sand. lol, again you defend the charges of perverting the market with an interpretation of conditions based on the presumption of a free market, and saying that your interpretation proves that the market is free. Face, meet palm. Here are some quotes: ...Again ignoring the context of the quotes, which was in direct response to a question about how market share could be used to measure the effect of the remedies imposed upon MS after they were found guilty of... wait for it... tying and disadvantaging competitors!! Oh my goodness, a real live abusive monopoly, just as they were convicted in the US! Your conspiracy theories are just as looney as the Area 51 and grassy-knoll nuts. It's funny how right-wingers can't stand the concept of evolution, yet when it comes to economics, use survival of the fittest to justify their pro-big-business pet policies -- You need to go back and get a new set of talking points from your think-tank, 'cause these ones aren't working. fpg

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (255001)	8/1/2008 7:14:53 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: A Monopoly is not acceptable. There's no problem with a monopoly. There are many aspects of a modern economy that are natural monopolies. But monopolies should not be abused, and often require regulation. For example, the gas company (which has a natural monopoly on distribution) can mandate that a particular shape nut be used to attach any stove or furnace to a gas line (for safety reasons). And that company can copyright the shape, but it can't then charge $75 for a $1 nut that used their "IP. OTOH, if a particular appliance maker, that faces plenty of competition when trying to sell to a homeowner, wants to play a similar game - they can have at it. It's the same behavior, but it's illegal for the monopolist to do it while the same behavior is legal for a company that faces adequate competition. Defining a monopoly is always a point of discussion, but a company that has a 90% market share and greater than 100% profit share (looking at the numbers, that is apparently the rather unintuitive case) is unquestionably a monopoly. Add to that a well documented history of abusive behavior and...