|>to qualify as a "bribe" it would probably have to be "under the table", hidden, improperly accounted for.|
Intel's rebates to Dell were accounted for by Intel, yet you characterize them as bribes, by Intel. Accusations of Intel's discount structure have been characterized as "selling below cost", because they were effectively so, according to the accusers. So while AMD's offer of free processors may not meet the legal definition of a bribe, they were tantamount to one, which is in essence the reasoning so often used by you to condemn Intel.
Oh I'm sure the numbers were written down somewhere. In a huge, slushy, non-public "Meet Competition" program ledger... OTOH, DELL couldn't face exposing the payments or their nature...
And, I condemn Intel for the abuse of market power. The improper accounting is just the icing on the cake, albeit necessary icing, as of course abuse of market power runs afoul of anti-competition law.
If it weren't in breach of anti-competition law, there's no need to hide the payments/rebates. Such as is the case with AMD's free-processor inducement. It's only a "bribe" if it's illegal. Which, IMHO, Intel's payments were (justifying the label) and AMD's free-processor offer wasn't.
>Is it possible that after all this time you still have no understanding of antitrust/anti-monopoly/anti-competition law? Ignorant comments like this last one of yours indicates that this is indeed the case.
Read your own statement:
>The entire Discount Attribution argument that the EC nailed Intel to the wall with in fact depends on a large, committed base of consumer demand for the dominant supplier's products.
"The EUC's case depends on a large, committed base of consumer demand for the dominant supplier's [Intel] products".
Do I need to translate this for you? Their case depended on people wanting Intel products. You are supporting my case by implying that too many people wanted Intel products so the EUC had to take action. If this was a typo then simply say so. You are allowed an occasional mistake.
It's not a mistake. Your confusion stems from your own ignorance and misrepresentation of the subject at hand, the "Discount Attribution" standard as applied by the EC in their case against Intel. You can argue from ignorance some more, but all you'll achieve is... an increased testament to your ignorance.
>Did I say that Intel is responsible for the harm caused to AMD by a rogue Intel salesman?
I believe you did but I must admit, the below statement is a bit hard to decipher.
Just like your whole "Rogue Salesman" speculation burns the "Lying Sack Of S**t AMD", the "Global Conspiracy of Regulators Extracting Cash From The Bank Of Intel", and "Unwritten Uber-Rule Requiring Competitive Competitors", theories to the ground because if true, so was the harm to AMD (whether sanctioned by Intel or not.)
Like usual, you just believe what you want to believe. The key point is, that if the Rogue Salesman is true, then AMD was in fact harmed, destroying all of your other scenarios in which AMD was NOT harmed.
>In your scenario, where harm to AMD came from within Intel, it would behoove Intel to cooperate and identify the Rogue Salesman, which should be rather easy given the sweeping executive and financial power necessary to carry out the various activities which harmed AMD.
How can they find out when they can't cross examine their accusers? In some cases, testimony wasn't even taken under oath.
Simple: By investigating the accusations, and identifying the Rogue Salesman who (in your scenario, don't forget) is responsible for carrying out the accused deeds. I.e. cooperating.