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 : DELL Bear Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (1885)	9/8/1998 1:22:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 2578

RE: Intel a monopoly? Price discrimination to be actionable under WP must involve one seller making at least two sales (in interstate commerce) at different prices. FTC will not enforce it unless someone presents them with a ready-made case (sworn affidavits, receipts with identical product descriptions, etc.). Even then, an injured party will probably have to sue on his own and prove injury to competition (not just to a competitor)to get an injunction and also prove damages. If CPQ lost a few million because Intel favored Dell and still continued to compete effectively, it is doubtful that CPQ could win a vigorously defended suit. What is permissible in the mutual coercion of powerful market actors is only decided under the rule of reason in case law. Should Intel have sued IBM for monopoly in 1980 when it coerced Intel into licensing a second source for the 8088? Should Intergraph prevail on appeal against Intel for its arguably coercive demand for a license? The question of whether Intel is still a monopolist in any particular market is a matter of market definition and measurement. A year ago, there was little question that in any PC market Intel was a monopolist ( > 90 % Market Share in Learned Hand's Alcoa definition). Today it probably is not a monopolist in any relevant market. An x86 limitation probably won't wash, nor will a >$1000 definition. Perhaps we shall find that Intel's giving up share after the FTC charges was an incredibly paranoid preparation of a defense. I think that's a joke.

To: The Phoenix who wrote (1885)	9/8/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: JRI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2578

Hi Gary! Just getting back to the thread, and reading all the weekend posts... Haven't had a chance to respond to your last post (to me), but I will soon... Just a quickie.. You wrote: <Look, I live in the bay area. We pay $1.20-$1.25 a gallon for regular gasoline. They're paying less than $1.00 on the east coast and much of the oil comes from the west. THAT is price discrmination and the FTC does nothing about that. > This is in all likelihood due to the difference in state taxes for gasoline sales. California has one of the highest (maybe the highest) state tax in the country....The price to clean up/regulate (supposedly) those beautiful coasts ..about 25cents higher than most states....If there were gouging on this, the FTC would be all over it... Talk to you again soon... John