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: combjelly who wrote (259595)	4/7/2009 7:23:28 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

That has been the subject of endless debate on the pricing structure and the incremental cost. Let the courts decide on the validity of the price schedule, althogh my opinion is that the Intel pricing was legal as long as Intel sold its goods above its marginal cost. My understanding is that the Japan issue was the advertisement rebate given for the Intel Inside campaign.Those contracts for the marketing rebate had a clause which seemed to exclude AMD, and Intel consented to modify its contracts, and paid a minor fine. I view the law as being asymmetrical. AMD can sell below its marginal cost, while Intel being a dominant supplier, cannot. There are similar constrains on bundling on the dominant suppliers. But that protects the weak, and that should be enough. Any attempt to do more will lead to a socialist economy, in the form of a quota for Intel and a quota for AMD. That will do wonders for the profits and stock holders of both companies, but is not good for the consumer.