SI
SI
discoversearch

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.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 75.00+0.8%Jul 19 4:00 PM EDT

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Maurice Winn6/14/2019 4:27:56 PM
13 Recommendations

Recommended By
alanrs
Doug M.
garrettjax
Greg Hull
Jon Koplik

and 8 more members

   of 159356
 
Lucy is wrong. There is no Monopoly. A couple of days ago I bought a Cyberphone at the 2degrees shop in Newmarket, Auckland. There were mostly Huawei, Samsung and Apple phones. I wanted Snapdragon by Qualcomm. The sales lady told me they mostly use their own chips because they want their own specifications.

She pointed me towards some Oppo phones that use Qualcomm.

There was no Xiaomi which I wanted. Nor HTC etc.

Qualcomm is barely surviving.

So why the FTC court case?

Lucy has defined the so called monopoly stupidly narrowly. As I have explained for decades, first they identify the target victim and big pile of money to attack. Then they set about defining a so called market so that it catches just the target victim. Because it's hard to get just the target victim they define a monopoly to be about 70 percent of that narrowly defined market.

Then they exclude evidence that contradicts that narrowly defined market of a particular kind of premium phone in a particular part of the spectrum, in a particular part of a country at a particular time, or some stupid thing.

Hey presto a monopoly that's abusive and bundling and extorquerationste and must be looted to save consumers.

Of course consumers get no benefit from the attack and in fact are harmed. The loot goes to the judge, the lawyers, the favoured friends like Tim Apple, Samsung, Huawei.

Why does Lucy twist herself up into a pretzel to achieve that aim. What's in it for her.
She voted against Big D and for Hillary
She's Korean as identity rulz
She uses iPhone
She's feminist
She's anti-male Geeks and giving them the lash
She wants Liberal promotion
She's a lawyer thinking she's better than Geeks
She's envious of Geek Silicon Valley money

Her judgment was full of rubbish demonstrating her intentions from the beginning. The process rules she chose and evidence eliminated showed her bias.

She could not be a scientist because she doesn't understand that all evidence has to be considered. But she can be a judge as law is about who gets the loot produced by scientists, engineers and Geeks. Law has nothing to do with reason though they dress it up with a little legalistic fig leaf to cover their lust for loot.

I'd like to see Lucy go shopping for a Cyberphone and try to demonstrate the Qualcomm monopoly.

It's insane that Broadcom was banned by Trump as Qualcomm was a mission critical company for national security but Lucy is aiming to destroy it.

Mqurice

PS ... Check Lucy's bank accounts too as bribery is always tempting. Cayman Islands etc. The USA has the best politicians money can buy.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext