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 (262027)	10/18/2009 12:32:15 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Get a clue. The extension of your logic was hypothetical. Nehalem is compelling, therefore Nehalem is anti-competitive, therefore Nehalem is a violation of anti-competitive law. It's not hard to see where your tortured reasoning leads us. Elmer, Elmer, Elmer... You are attributing YOUR OWN statements to ME. Message 26026848 ME: "Remember, its the effect of the rebates, not the wording. If the effect is coercive, they're coercive." Let me say this slowly so you understand: I'm. Talking. About. Coercive. REBATES. You. **. . You know, the largest component of the EC's case against Intel. YOU: "Your reasoning gets more bizarre by the post. By your reasoning, AMD has the power to make Intel's contracts coercive by not offering a compelling alternative. Furthermore, a product, by itself, could be so compelling as to make it's mere offering coercive." Bizarre reasoning is you trying to "extend" my factual statement about how COERCIVE REBATES are treated by both US and EC competition authorities, by making an illogical leap based on your ignorance of the law, to present my position as if it somehow applied to COMPETITION ON THE MERITS. A straw man argument if I ever saw one. Additionally, I've stated my thoughts about "competition on the merits" on multiple occasions; I've consistently argued that it is desired, in contrast* to a market perverted by abuse of the market power wielded by a dominant entity: Message 25546399 I said: "Interference with AMD's access to a free market, based on the abuse of Intel's dominant supplier status through coercive loyalty rebates, rather than the merits of their products* (i.e. perverting the process of competition) is inherently injurious to consumer welfare, as consumers are optimally served by an uncorrupted free market." Message 25654884 I said: "That may be. At least it will be on the product's merits and not abuse of monopoly power." AND YET, you try to pin YOUR OWN, FABRICATED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH "position" on to me as if I said or implied it. And then smugly proceed to argue against your straw man all the while ad homing me. I even busted up for the Nth time an ugly little innuendo of yours ("AMD [used] the power to make Intel's contracts coercive by not offering a compelling alternative [as relates to the EC case]") with the statements that showed Lenovo was both having problems with Intel, and were hot for producing AMD-based products. Really, you're taking the fun out of arguing with you by being SO GOD-DAMNED SLOPPY. Your continuous references to cherry picked excerpts, while excluding any evidence which may contradict it [...] Describe this excluded evidence. Please. If all of this "exculpatory" "evidence" you claim exists is available and clear-cut, then Intel's appeal will be a slam dunk and the EC will be penalized accordingly, right? Fact is, when Intel did actually bother to offer arguments against the EC's interpretation of the evidence used in the case, they were included in the decision and the EC presented their justification for rejecting Intel's arguments. (Presumably, they excluded any evidence that Intel disputed successfully.) They take up about 20% of the decision to do so. But you sound very nervous, Elmer... Maybe you really DO understand that most of Intel's complaints about missing/unused/ignored "exculpatory" evidence is based on their denied (by the CFI) demand for a fishing expedition through AMD documents, even though the EC hardly relied on AMD documents at all to make their case (instead using documents from Intel and its coerced customers for the basis of their Equally Efficient Competitor economic analysis.) Intel thinks they can convince the CFI that an economic analysis against AMD's costs is better than an equally efficient competitor analysis... LOL! Do they not understand that the EC just revamped their methods for doing these economic analyses, drawing the bright line at the EEC standard, and rejecting any vague analysis based on vague/unclear/unreliable alternatives? And your barrage of straw-man arguments does not help with your credibility at all. (I bet anything you ignore the majority of this post, pick out 1 or 2 lines to respond to, and ad hom me again.) fpg **The mistake you made is to think that Intel's rebates being illegal has anything to do with AMD or its products, when in fact the rebates were determined to be illegal based on an Equally Efficient Competitor economic analysis that specifically EXCLUDES the merits/deficiencies of Intel's competitors. How many times have I tried to pound this fact through your thick skull?