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 (259512)	4/6/2009 7:03:19 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Tenchu - I believe that Intel has been quite clear that none of the contracts require that the customer use Intel products exclusively. The exclusionary contract theory is AMD's claim and dutifully parroted here. The KFTC made this finding as well and it's one of the things Intel is appealing. As for fpg, I think he deserves credit for fielding multiple arguments simultaneously and remaining a somewhat good sport about it. Others wouldn't have handled it as well. FWIW.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (259512)	4/6/2009 7:40:04 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench: FPG bases his entire argument not on open competition, but on the notion that AMD is entitled to a segment of the market. US law states that AMD has a legal right to sell its legal products to any market and this can not be restricted by Intel or anyone else. The antitrust laws being violated are the cause of how Intel is alleged to have illegally restricted AMD from selling in the market. This is one of the bases of antitrust laws. And AMD is also stating that Intel violated other laws as well. This is stated time and time again by the experts, USDOJ, JFTC, KFTC and the EU, yet you and the others blow off this by saying Intel knows better than these august agencies. The chance of that being true is a certain zero. So the basis of your (the group) arguments is flat wrong. "Open" competition seems to be defined by you as no holds barred anything goes. That isn't what the law wants, free, level and fair competition is the goal. Free as in anyone can join. Level is that all entities must play by the same rules and have the same access. Fair is that all entities compete only on the merits of their products. The laws covers many of the ways that stop any of these from happening. Intel has attempted and criminally succeeded in altering all three of these parts. Two of those august bodies have convicted Intel of doing these things and it is pending at the other two. In addition, AMD has filed suit against Intel in the US and Japan alleging these and many more violations of the law. Whether or not you like these laws, that isn't the question. They are the law of the land during the period of those alleged violations. Trying some argument where those laws are not in force is fantasy on your (the group's) part and is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Pete

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (259512)	4/7/2009 1:16:10 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, > What exclusionary contracts? Got a link? Loyalty rebates, volume discounts, whatever. FPG bases his entire argument not on open competition, but on the notion that AMD is entitled to a segment of the market. Uh oh, trouble on the home front... And no I don't. A quick summary of my interpretation of AMD's accusations is that: AMD deserves to be able to sell their products into a market that is not corrupted by rebates that would essentially be bribes by Intel to the OEMs that effectively coerce them into reducing or excluding AMD products. fpg