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 (77092)	3/23/1999 1:29:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Intel uses their monopoly position in many unfair ways." More nonsense Scumbria. Re: "In the past they threatened OEMs with "not guaranteeing" their supply of CPUs, if the OEM used competitors parts. " Who would you supply if your product was on allocation? Your best customers or your worst? Re: "They pay for retailers advertising, on the condition that the ad is Intel only." You claim this is in violation or anti-trust? You've got to be joking. Re: "They price low end products at prices which can not sustain the company, but rather are intended to kill off the competition." If you are referring to AMD you are correct but if it's Intel you mean you have repeatedly make this claim yet you have never provided a shred of evidence to back it up. You are simply wrong. EP

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: Robert Douglas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<<All of these activities are in violation of the intent of the antitrust laws of the US.>> It's very common in sports to blame a loss on your competitor's cheating tactics. The alternative is too difficult to accept. That is you are inferior to the competition.

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 1:57:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

SCUMbria - Re: " Intel uses their monopoly position in many unfair ways. In the past they threatened OEMs with "not guaranteeing" their supply of CPUs, if the OEM used competitors parts. They pay for retailers advertising, on the condition that the ad is Intel only. They price low end products at prices which can not sustain the company, but rather are intended to kill off the competition. All of these activities are in violation of the intent of the antitrust laws of the US. " Why don't you write the FTC about all this - I'm sure they would be glad to help you. Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 2:00:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

SCUMBRIA - Re: " In the past they threatened OEMs with "not guaranteeing" their supply of CPUs, if the OEM used competitors parts. " By the sounds of it, I would say that Intel is making heroic efforts to keep Gateway's business running by supplying them with EXTRA Celeron Processors to help them, Gateway - A LOYAL INTEL CUSTOMER - in their time of need as they sort out the K62/Motherboard problems that have shut down their Kmart line of PCs. Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: Joey Smith	Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, They price low end products at prices which can not sustain the company, but rather are intended to kill off the competition. All of these activities are in violation of the intent of the antitrust laws of the US. Where do you come up with this stuff? Intel supplied FTC with pricing/cost information regarding Celeron BEFORE the settlement. In other words, Intel is NOT pricing Celeron below cost. Intel has every right to lower the prices on Celeron. If AMD can't keep and remain profitable, then that's their tough luck. joey

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 2:56:00 PM
From: Scott Heaton	Respond to of 186894

Re: " They price low end products at prices which can not sustain the company, but rather are intended to kill off the competition. All of these activities are in violation of the intent of the antitrust laws of the US." _________________________________________________________________ Wal-mart was sued using that same thought. They sell many of their products below cost and put lots of hardware stores out. The judge said that it was increasing competition -- Wal-mart won. Intel is just increasing competition!

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 3:35:00 PM
From: Diamond Jim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"They pay for retailers advertising, on the condition that the ad is Intel only." Great idea isn't it? What if Intel said they will sell their chips 25% under Intel's price? sound familiar? Case closed, guess you are wrong or did they unfairly settle with the gov't too?

To: Scumbria who wrote (77092)	3/23/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hey, Scummy, If you know so much about the intent of the AT laws you should write a book. No one else knows the intent, which is why we have so many interesting cases. If you (or anyone can prove) that Intel is trying to destroy AMD to obtain or preserve a monopoly, you could make some money by buying even more AMD stock and suing, or at least suggesting to Jerry that he launch a private AT suit against Intel. Why do you suppose he doesn't sue -- triple damages, cost of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees -- if you win. I do think you facts are screwy. I understand Intel pays the percentage of the cost of the ad that represents the Intel display. I also understand that AMD undercuts Intel prices and Intel lowers it price to meet. The right to match price cuts (regardless of cost of production) or comparable goods is guaranteed in the price discrimination laws and cases. It's called competition, and that's what the AT laws are intended to preserve (according to the SC) not competitors (especially incompetent ones like AMD).