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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (255095)	8/2/2008 3:58:55 PM
From: rzborusa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

For example, AMD must have "bribed" DreamWorks into buying AMD processors. Maybe bribery is intrinsic in every sale. Thank you for freeing my mind.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (255095)	8/2/2008 4:19:01 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Borusa, > What you are over looking is that, none of those tactics are practical or even possible for a minor player. Just once, look at it from that perspective. AMD makes exclusionary agreements all the time. "Buy only from us, and it will be worth it for you." For example, AMD must have "bribed" DreamWorks into buying AMD processors. Of course, that's legal because "bribery" is only illegal if you're a "monopoly" ... Fact: According to antitrust law, some behaviors that are legal for smaller players are not for those with significant market power. Your example is not one of them. Case in point: Intel just made the same kind of deal with the same customer and nobody is calling for their head on a platter. The reason is that US antitrust law does not have any serious problems with even dominant companies making "exclusive" deals with end-users. (But even that line can be crossed, witness the determination that Sprint's early termination fees are illegal.) Laws are what define legal vs. illegal behavior. fpg