'All-out war' in Intel-AMD antitrust case

TalkBack 22 of 79:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

perspective

"This is truly a bet the company move, and from my perspective a very poor one."

For a moment let's apply some logic to this situation. If you take out the fact that AMD is "dragging" its customers into court (which you seem so focused on) to testify on their behalf and examine current US law regarding business practices (which you tend to ignore), some basic "facts" (as factual as US law can be) can be made evident.

1. The US government has laws in place designed to promote competition in our pseudo free-market economy. This was put into place to protect the consumer. A pure free-market economy without any kind of regulation wouldn't be a free-market economy for long. It would (quickly) deteriate into a situation where a couple of companies owned, controlled, and charged whatever they wanted for almost all the products in said economy. Competition in a market drives down prices and gives the consumer a choice in products. It is also supposed to foster inovation in the marketplace and therfore improve the quality of products available to the consumer. ECON101(High School ECON)

2. When two companies are about the same size, almost anything that isn't blatantly anti-competitive is allowed. *This is an assumption, albiet a logical one. I probably shouldn't include it, but what the he!!

3. When there is a difference in size, and one company has a monopoly position on the market, the rules change. The company that has the monopoly is expected to compete "fairly" in the market and more stringent guidelines are supposed to govern its behavior. **A monopoly isn't illegal in and of itself. It's what a company does with that monopoly that makes it's behavior, legal or illegal.

If we can agree (which I don't think we can) that the above "facts" are true, two things become evident.

1. Intel has a virtual monopoly on the processor market (I have no idea on exact figures but I know Intel has the lions share). With that position comes a certain government enforced responsibility to not be a bully. Anti-competitive tactics are not (supposed) to be tolerated. If Intel did try (and in fact did) lock out AMD with certain vendors and OEM's through sweet-heart deals and scare tactics, by leveraging it's market postion, then Intel could and should be in trouble.

2. AMD "dragging" it's customers into court really doesn't matter. It's not the core of the issue. If as you say, AMD is on its last legs and this is a last gasp effort (which it isn't, to either points) then they have absolutely nothing to lose. Besides, didn't your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right. If Intel is guilty and AMD shouldn't be "dragging" it's customers into court, niether one of these cancel each other out. AMD pissing off it's client base doesn't somehow negate Intel's bad behavior.

Pick an issue No_Ax, I'll debate you on either one.

Posted by: cobalt54   Posted on: 07/16/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now