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 (259519)	4/7/2009 11:09:24 AM
From: Mahmoud Mohammed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Mr Guru, Re: "If Intel was using discriminatory loyalty rebates as AMD asserts ..." Just more assertions without any data ... BTW, volume based price discounts are not illegal. Mahmoud

To: fastpathguru who wrote (259519)	4/7/2009 12:18:53 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: If Intel was using discriminatory loyalty rebates as AMD asserts, then... This has not been proven. I'm trying to avoid discussing speculation at this point, and I don't think circumstantial evidence or second hand knowledge presented on this forum can do a better job than a court of law with full visibility of the facts. Re: antitrust law provides mechanisms for competitors as well as consumers to seek relief from the effects of abusive monopolies. This may be true, but I'm not an expert. What I was trying to discuss was a different question - not a "does it?" question, but a "should it?" question. There may be a philosophical difference between us, but I don't think laws should extend to protecting corporations in the event that consumers are getting what they want. I accept the argument of long term consumer detriment, however, and I'd rather this be used as the defense, as opposed to arguing that the competitor is harmed today. I don't care about the corporations. They can come and go, and others will take their place. I do care about protecting the consumer, both in the short term as well as the long term. But the burden of proof is also important, and it's difficult to prove forward that consumers may be harmed by actions today, and I think the only way to do it would be an indefensible chain of events. Perhaps you can do this with a utility company where the chain of events to delivering a utility are well understood, and putting things in place that lead to harming the consumer in the future may be prevented. In the case of a semiconductor vendor, I think it's much more ambiguous. Re: An inefficient competitor can be marginalized or driven out of business without resorting to tactics that run afoul of antitrust laws, i.e. cheating. But even inefficient competitors should not have to face a cheater in the market. Cheaters should be punished whether they are facing strong or weak opponent(s). I think we agree here, but I also think it's irrelevant to the argument, since you have you accept a priori that a cheater is involved in this case, and that has not been proven. There is also the very sticky issue of defining a cheater. There has been established a legal boundary for defining a cheater, as opposed to a strong competitor, and people certainly have differing opinions (some quite fanciful) on what implies cheating. I have my opinion on what should conform to effective government intervention to business tactics, but I don't know enough to add value to this forum with my own legal understanding. You may be more informed, but I also see you taking a few things for granted, such as several claims made by AMD. I think that puts the burden on AMD to prove that Intel did what they are claiming Intel did, and I think it makes sense to differentiate the legal policy with the assumptions of what Intel is guilty of doing.