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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (74480)	2/25/1999 4:22:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Re: "The Intel-AMD struggle is exactly the type of situation which antitrust law was written for. The FTC will be watching Intel's actions very carefully." So what else is new? EP

To: Scumbria who wrote (74480)	2/25/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Your point being that AMD's success in the consumer market place is proof that Intel is a monopoly? I believe that AMD badly miscalculated that Intel would *NEVER* vigourously respond to AMD's low price, take market share at all costs approach. I gather you think that Intel is supposed to stand by idly while a sustained attack on a portion of their business is conducted. AMD attacked though its yields were poor so it wound up with a net LOSS per sale. Intel responded with pricing that makes a net profit per sale. I believe Intel has a better case of predatory practices against AMD than vice-versa.

To: Scumbria who wrote (74480)	2/25/1999 5:02:00 PM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, Re: "The Intel-AMD struggle is exactly the type of situation which antitrust law was written for. The FTC will be watching Intel's actions very carefully." So which "actions" are those, Slick ?? Make It So, Yousef

To: Scumbria who wrote (74480)	2/25/1999 7:51:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, <The Intel-AMD struggle is exactly the type of situation which antitrust law was written for.> It's nice to know that you know about as much about antitrust law as you do about investing....i.e., zero. AMD's struggle is due largely to their own incompetence (i.e. relentless manufacturing/yield problems) and flawed marketing/pricing strategies. So far, there are no laws against having incompetent competitors. The fact that AMD insists on selling their products below costs is hardly Intel's doing. I keep hearing from all the AMD wizards just how great and competitive AMD chips are. If true, why doesn't AMD just price their products equivalent to Intel (instead of 25% below) and compete on performance??? FF

To: Scumbria who wrote (74480)	2/25/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

scAMDria - Re: "The FTC will be watching Intel's actions very carefully." Oh..they are ! {==========================} 02/25 11:47A (DJ) Former FTC Official Says Antitrust Case Against Intel Is 'Fragile' Story 0593 (INTC-D, INTC, I/SEM, G/FTC, N/LWS, N/TEC, N/TST, N/WEI, M/TEC...) NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- William Kovacic, a former Federal Trade Commission official and now a law professor at George Washington University, said the government's antitrust case against Intel Corp. is "fragile" and "prone to destruct on key matters of fact," the New York Times reported Thursday. The FTC last June alleged that Intel threatened customers Intergraph, Digital Equipment Corp. and Compaq Computer Corp. by withdrawing technical information and chip prototypes during legal disputes. The agency said Intel's (INTC) tactics violated antitrust law because Intel has a monopoly on the microprocessors that serve as the brains of personal computers. In response, Intel conceded withdrawing the information and chips samples from the companies, which were involved in patent litigation affecting the semiconductor giant. But Intel has denied it has a monopoly in the microprocessor market and has disputed the FTC's contention that its prototypes and advanced product information are "essential facilities," or resources that customers must have access to in order to stay in business. Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel last year filed court papers indicating that it will lean on interpretations of law, rather than facts, to dispute the antitrust allegations. (The full text of this story is available in Dow Jones Interactive. To retrieve it using the software, search in Current News. On the Web, use the New York Times in Business Newsstand. Additional Codes (P/DCO, P/DCZ, P/DEX, P/DSE, P/DWV, P/SKB, R/CA, R/NME, R/PRM, R/US, R/USW) {===========================} Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (74480)	2/25/1999 11:34:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Slick - Re: "The FTC will be watching Intel's actions very carefully" The Head of the FTC sure is WATCHING INTEL !!!! Paul {===========================} quote.bloomberg.com FTC Chairman Urges Caution on Breakup of High-Tech Monopolists FTC Chairman Urges Caution on Breakup of High-Tech Monopolists Washington, Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Antitrust enforcers should be cautious about seeking to break up or severely disable monopolists in high-tech industries, U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Robert Pitofsky said. Pitofsky, whose agency is conducting a broad investigation of dominant computer-chip maker Intel Corp., said the complexity and dynamism of high-tech industries should give antitrust enforcers pause when they investigate fields such as computers, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, communications and international credit and finance. ''My own tentative view. . . is that antitrust enforcers should proceed cautiously in breaking up or mandating access to an existing network, even when that network is dominant,'' Pitofsky said in a speech to an American Bar Association workshop in Scottsdale, Arizona. Pitofsky said prudence is particularly important in fields involving intellectual property because of the importance of encouraging innovation. Although Pitofsky mentioned Intel and Microsoft Corp. only in passing, his remarks could signal that the FTC isn't likely to seek major changes to Intel's business practices in its antitrust suit set to go to trial March 9. And they came as the U.S. Justice Department considers a range of remedies, including a possible breakup, in its antitrust case against Microsoft. ''It's a way of signaling to the business community that we are aware that these are extremely serious measures and would have to be undertaken very carefully,'' said Bill Kovacic, an antitrust professor at George Washington University. Unique Problems Pitofsky, an antitrust scholar and the head of the FTC since 1995, said the high-tech industries present unique problems for antitrust enforcers. Among other things, he said those fields involve rapid marketplace changes, a need for collaborative research and development, and extraordinarily high entry costs. Pitofsky, 69, was quick to say those industries shouldn't get a pass from antitrust enforcers. ''Antitrust should -- indeed must -- continue to apply,'' he said. ''None of the 'high-tech differences' justifies a complete or even substantial exemption.'' Still, he pointed to the ''perplexing'' questions posed by the economics of many high-tech industries. He cited an economic concept known as ''network efficiencies,'' under which some products become more valuable to buyers as more people acquire them. For example, an owner of a fax machine benefits when other people buy compatible machines. And consumers are likely to get better software if developers devote all their resources to creating applications for one, dominant computer operating system, rather than dividing their attention among several systems. ''On the one hand, such networks are efficient and occasionally inevitable,'' Pitofsky said. ''On the other hand, they increase the likelihood that one firm, by achieving a critical mass, will dominate a market or retain market power for an extended period of time.'' Intel Case The FTC already has filed a narrow antitrust case against Intel and is considering broader charges. The agency accuses Intel of withholding information from Intergraph Corp. and others after those companies accused the chipmaker of patent infringement. Intel denies any wrongdoing. In a related, private lawsuit by Intergraph, a federal judge said access to Intel's products, particularly information about advance versions of new chips, was an ''essential facility.'' That phrase describes a legal status that prevents companies from exercising proprietary rights to a product that has become an industry standard. Pitofsky today said government antitrust enforcers should be slow to seek similar remedies, saying they should be cautious about ''mandating access'' to products. ''For the time being, until we know more about the origins and significance of network efficiencies,'' he said, ''antitrust should probably concentrate in most situations on its traditional role of ensuring that companies achieve network monopolies through legitimate competitive conduct, and that they maintain the network dominance only through superior skill, foresight and industry -- not by unnecessarily exclusionary conduct.'' NYSE/AMEX delayed 20 min. NASDAQ delayed 15 min.