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 (259414)	4/4/2009 12:28:17 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I will ask the question again, do you claim expertise in the field of anti-trust law? If so then say so. The first couple paragraphs in [Wikipedia] corroborate what I wrote. Not how I read it. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Robert Bork has found that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater then benefits for the consumers. Another poster has provided what might be considered a more reliable source than Wikipedia. findarticles.com First, the objective of the antitrust laws is the prevention of injury to consumers. Second, the antitrust laws are intended to protect competition, not competitors. Requiring some evidence of consumer injury* ensures that the antitrust laws are applied in a fashion that is directly consistent with the fundamental objectives. This would seem to contradict your claim. Is your claim that of an expert in this field or simply from a layman such as myself? Please don't skirt this question because it is critical to evaluating your claims. * From the Wikipedia page you referenced: This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. * Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since July 2007. * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since February 2009. * Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since February 2009. * Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since February 2009. * It may not present a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since July 2007. * It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since February 2009. This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (July

To: fastpathguru who wrote (259414)	4/4/2009 12:27:13 PM
From: Windsock	Respond to of 275872

The very first sentence in your wiki citation says about all that needs to be said about the value of your source of knowledge: "This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." [emphasis in the original] On second thought the use of this citation is so ematarassing that more can be said. This comment in the citation after the six bullet description of all the flaws in the article is also helpful: "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." [emphasis in the original]