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 (255055)	8/1/2008 7:18:56 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>Sorry, lack of a paper trail does not exonerate Intel: So convict on no evidence? They must have something, but what? Don't put words in my mouth. You're the one saying contracts have to explicitly exclude AMD. That is false on its face: Loyalty rebates that demand Intel exclusivity without mentioning a specific competitor would also be illegal. Loyalty rebates under certain circumstances that implicitly coerce exclusivity will likely also be considered illegal. QED. >You can't exclude the possibility of an "evil Intel" who is good at covering their tracks No and you can't exclude the possibility that there is no evil empire, but I'm sure you will anyway. The alternative is AMD failed by their own hand and that's too horrible to accept. Wrong, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Intel would be off the hook if the EU can't make its case. But certainly your bogus arguments do not constitute proof of innocence. >While a paper trail would be a slam dunk conviction (and you can't exclude this possibility based on your personal lack of knowledge re: EU's evidence), it will be enough to convict Intel if the effects of Intel's loyalty rebates on OEMs are sufficiently coercive. I've already said that >>if<< Intel has contracts that specifically mention AMD and require exclusion then the EU is right to take action. I don't think they do. See above: they would be right to take action for contracts that don't explicitly mention AMD too. They would even be right to take action for contracts that don't explicitly require exclusivity. As long as the effect of the rebates is to coerce near or full exclusivity without valid business justification or product merit, they would be right. If you'd followed the discussion, you'd know that I was pointing out that the poster has gone on record as being opposed to any governing body taking action if the agreements do not specifically mention AMD. I was asking if we have any evidence that any agreements do specifically mention AMD. We already know that it may be the interpretation that the agreements cause exclusion in their effect without explicitly requiring it. That wasn't the argument so let's not waste time rehashing that point. So you concede the point. GREAT! Bookmarked! ephud is on record conceding the possibility that contracts can cause exclusion in their effect! THIS IS PROGRESS! Your hammering away on mas' quote is pretty juvenile. I'm sure he'd be willing to concede that he had overshot the requirements for successful prosecution in that statement, if you asked nicely. >has Intel identified your world-traveling, untrackable-discretionary-rebate-wielding rogue agent yet? We don't know that there is one. We haven't seen any evidence yet. Only press releases with vague accusations that lack specifics like "did any of the agreements specifically mention AMD and did any specifically require exclusion"? Until we have some facts we only have speculation. That's all either of us have been doing. Don't worry about it. It's not like anyone takes your rogue-agent invention seriously anyways. But if you're going to base your arguments on it, the burden of proof is on you to support it. Please don't feel bad if we don't entertain a figment of your imagination. (Note that this is different than not knowing what evidence the EU has... The difference being that the EU has actually claimed to have evidence, while no one but yourself and your peers have ever speculated positively about a rogue trader.) Just like if I said the EU was holding incriminating documents in a UFO at Area 51, the burden of proof would be on me to support that claim. I shouldn't be surprised if you didn't take me seriously. fpg