|To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269620)||4/19/2012 11:59:41 AM|
|From: fastpathguru||Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 272314|
|When AMD offered to give HPQ a million processors free of charge, why wasn't that a bribe? |
Completely aside from the separate antitrust issue of whether AMD could "abuse it's dominant market position" by throwing free processors around... to qualify as a "bribe" it would probably have to be "under the table", hidden, improperly accounted for. LOL.
>I've NEVER said there weren't differences between suppliers and their products/services.
You left it out of every single discussion. You never acknowledged it as a reason for an OEM to choose one supplier over another despite a lower price from the loser.
Wrong, I've always acknowleged that there are differences between suppliers and their products. (BTW, you stating "Parts is Parts" repeatedly is not a "discussion".) The problem here is that you fail to acknowledge the possibility that the huge sums of cash that exchanged from Intel's hands to DELL's, for no accountable reason could have been for the purpose of persuading DELL to purchase CPUs exclusively from Intel.
>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.
Huh? The EUC case depends on people wanting Intel processors? We can't allow that can we!
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.
>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.)
So AMD is responsible for any harm done to Intel by the recent IP theft by a paid AMD employee(whether sanctioned by AMD or not.)
Did I say that Intel is responsible for the harm caused to AMD by a rogue Intel salesman? (Since you can't answer even simple questions, let me do it for you: Answer=No.)
All I said was that if your speculative Rogue Salesman existed, then AMD would have been harmed and a response to that harm would be justified. 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.
LOL, even within the confines of your own speculative scenario, Intel fails to act appropriately...