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 (259445)	4/6/2009 1:52:16 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The DOJ quote is but one of many. A google search turns up both references to protecting the consumer and protecting competition, however nowhere did I find a reference to protecting the competitor. Whichever purpose the Courts decide the law serves, it is AMD's burden to show that Intel has illegally violated the purpose of the law. So I take it you concede that: A) "Antitrust laws protect competition." B) "Free and open competition benefits consumers[...]" C) A, thus B. I have made it clear in the past, in the history of this thread even, that my position is that competition law protects "competition" (the process) and not (the) "competition" (of a dominant firm.) Message 25545604 The only people I see talking about antitrust laws specifically protecting competitors come from the Intel folk, with regard to European antitrust enforcement. (I disagree with that notion even in that context, and have argued against it.) re: "nowhere did I find a reference to protecting the competitor": Perhaps because it is so glaringly obvious that by protecting the process of competition, antitrust law protects entity X's competitors from harm that could result X abusing the process of competition. fpg