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: wbmw who wrote (259548)	4/7/2009 1:00:56 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

reuters.com Re: If Intel was using discriminatory loyalty rebates as AMD asserts, then... This has not been proven. For sufficiently nitpicky definitions of "proven", at least. The JFTC and KFTC think they had enough proof to sanction Intel, and then there's this elephant in the room... reuters.com I'm trying to avoid discussing speculation at this point [...] Ok then... 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 [...speculation omitted...] ;) 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. What do I take for granted? Got an example? I spend 60% of my posts on rebutting the Intel side's misrepresentations of AMD's case, 35% of them on trying to establish a common foundation upon which the case can be rationally discussed, and 5% of it firing back at stupid ad homs. I more or less agree with the rest. fpg