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 (259487)	4/6/2009 1:52:35 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Sigh... If you elevate protecting competition above protecting the consumer then an infraction can occur in the absence of any consumer harm. I don't think we as a society want that because it rewards incompetence, as we have seen in AMD's case, and leads to higher prices to support the inefficient competitor. The exact opposite of it's intent. I haven't been counting, but it seems like you've brought this up quite a few times already. Either the other party doesn't get or appreciate the significance of this, or they fundamentally think rewarding incompetence is better for the consumer than letting the dominate and more efficient competitor win all of the market. Or, alternatively, perhaps the other party doesn't agree with the premise that AMD has been inefficient or incompetent, but doesn't want to bring it up, because he thinks the evidence is pointing in the other direction, (IOW, he doesn't believe the evidence is painting an accurate picture). Have you attempted to find out which it is? Seems like this is the heart of the issue, IMHO.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (259487)	4/6/2009 2:16:34 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

LOL, now you're dismissing the USDOJ Antitrust Division's own website. No, I'm just pointing out that it's one of multiple sources and you are selectively posting the parts that support your position. It's a definitive source, Elmer. By protecting the process of competition, antitrust laws ultimately protect consumers and businesses from the harm that results from the process of competition being perverted. Sigh... If you elevate protecting competition above protecting the consumer then an infraction can occur in the absence of any consumer harm. I don't think we as a society want that because it rewards incompetence, as we have seen in AMD's case, and leads to higher prices to support the inefficient competitor. The exact opposite of it's intent. What part of Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anticompetitive restraints usdoj.gov don't you get? Are you calling into question the USDOJ Antitrust Division's website? What is it about antitrust law that you understand that the USDOJ Antitrust Division doesn't? Why is it so hard to understand that competitors, like consumers, can be harmed by abusive monopolies and deserve protection from monopolies that would try to shut off free access to the market? Why is it so hard to understand that certain abuses by a dominant firm are simply assumed to harm consumers, without requiring actual evidence of harm? (As with per-se violations.) fpg