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 : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (6530)	6/3/1998 2:40:00 AM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Paul, theoretically it'd be possible for Intel to practice predatory pricing in some markets (eg. low end Celeron chips) and still maintain the high margins in the high end markets that Herb is referring to. However, I don't think anyone is seriously charging Intel with predatory pricing. The case appears to be about Intel's practice of withholding certain technical information with the intent of driving the competition out of business. By the way, historically its been pretty tricky to make a good case for predatory pricing, so it's not likely that the FTC or DOJ would make it their focus--even if they had some evidence that it was happening. Kevin

To: Paul Engel who wrote (6530)	6/3/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Engel, re:<"Herb lectured about 100 reporters in Tokyo about how Intel's monopoly had created a price umbrella held so high AMD could easily undercut Intel's pricing..."> Q: What is the tense of "had created", and "could" Notice he did not say, "can easily undercut." Q: Did you notice the editorial comment in the article, "That claim... will be tested." 130mm^2 die size chips at < $75 is a different world than MMX233's at $400. Petz