Obviously you DONT because you think you're talking about the same thing. Many people are pointing out that it not the same, and its zooming right over your head.
You also dont work for a monopoly DO YOU?
Get a brain man.
Meh. My signings are always cleared by legal so I'm good and I always sign as a agent of the company and am not subject to the same rules as an officer. See I know the difference because of personal experience. Now it does get dicey when you're a director but even then you're acting as an agent so I'm covered.
Basically you have no idea what you are talking about nor do you have any first hand knowledge in such matters. I do.
Add me as well, because i'm going to say, you're an idiot. Only monopolies that are good for consumers are natural monopolies and those should be regulated up the ass by the government.
Jesus, I can't believe there are people defending intel here.
Some of you dudes must be from some fantasy planet, with benevolent monopolies.
Dear Clueless Computer Nerd, and everyone else in this thread who is clearly against capitalism.
Intel giving dell a rebate to be their exclusive customer is nothing new. It would be just like AT&T giving a rebate to Apple for being the exclusive carrier of the iPhone. Of course, none of you who have their own business understand that.
The bottom line is that when you are someone's largest customer, there are perks. Dell used their purchasing power to get a better deal with Intel, just as GM used to use their purchasing power to get the best price from US Steel.
The case is basically antitrust saying that Intel is using measures to shut out AMD, and although that may be the case they're not actively soliciting AMD customers and saying "Hey, buy all your chips from us and us only and we can make it very profitable for you". It's not against the law to give preferential treatment to your biggest customer.
Anyone who says otherwise wouldn't last a day in the real world.
I don't really care whose palms they greased. I don't buy pre-built PCs.
how does a NY attorney general get involved in a case from two companies that are based completely in the other side of the continent?
wow, someone wants to be governor/president.
Dear Clueless Computer Nerd, and everyone else in this thread who is clearly against capitalism.
Intel giving dell a rebate to be their exclusive customer is nothing new. It would be just like AT&T giving a rebate to Apple for being the exclusive carrier of the iPhone. Of course, none of you who have their own business understand that.
The bottom line is that when you are someone's largest customer, there are perks. Dell used their purchasing power to get a better deal with Intel, just as GM used to use their purchasing power to get the best price from US Steel.
The case is basically antitrust saying that Intel is using measures to shut out AMD, and although that may be the case they're not actively soliciting AMD customers and saying "Hey, buy all your chips from us and us only and we can make it very profitable for you". It's not against the law to give preferential treatment to your biggest customer.
Anyone who says otherwise wouldn't last a day in the real world.
Happily added. I don't go into P&N for a reason. I prefer to not put actual thought into forum posts, and I sure as fuck don't care what other people think.
This!!I think NY is trying to stem the red ink in it's budget with a nice fat fine. :biggrin:
Except the with AT&T and the Iphone there's no monopoly involved. WORST ANALOGY EVER.
Except the with AT&T and the Iphone there's no monopoly involved. WORST ANALOGY EVER.
Ahh ya, you shouldn't be accusing anyone about "cluelessness".
If Dell was Paying Intel, then your little AT&T/Apple comparison might have merit. However, given the difference of Reality between the 2, you just undermined any point you thought you had.
Dell(Buyer)/Intel(Seller)
AT&T(Buyer)/Apple(Seller)
Intel(Seller) Pays Dell(Buyer) for exclusivity
AT&T(Buyer) Pays Apple(Seller) for exclusivity
You may notice a subtle difference there. Then you may not.
Even if intel did nothing, they would have had more money for development then AMD. This question is how much more did they make if this is true.Back in 2002, i'd agree, but once conroe came out, AMD lost it all.
But I can see how if these incentives were true, why INTEL had more money for development then AMD did.
I've asked twice so far in this thread and still no reply yet all the people I've asked are still actively posting in here. I'll ask a third time.
At what point does it become a monopoly? Is it even defined? Is it LEGALLY defined? Obviously 100% of market share is a monopoly. Ok, but what about 95%? 85%? what abot 51%? At what point, EXACTLY, do the rules a company has to play by, change?
I've asked twice so far in this thread and still no reply yet all the people I've asked are still actively posting in here. I'll ask a third time.
At what point does it become a monopoly? Is it even defined? Is it LEGALLY defined? Obviously 100% of market share is a monopoly. Ok, but what about 95%? 85%? what abot 51%? At what point, EXACTLY, do the rules a company has to play by, change?
You seriously sound like youre 12 having a hissyfit. If you dont care what people think, stfu about it. :hmm:
I don't think there is any set market percentage that triggers to determine when there is a monopoly. Rather, its about how the company (or in the case of a duopoly, companies) uses its market share to influence the overall market.I've asked twice so far in this thread and still no reply yet all the people I've asked are still actively posting in here. I'll ask a third time.
At what point does it become a monopoly? Is it even defined? Is it LEGALLY defined? Obviously 100% of market share is a monopoly. Ok, but what about 95%? 85%? what abot 51%? At what point, EXACTLY, do the rules a company has to play by, change?
I don't think there is any set market percentage that triggers to determine when there is a monopoly. Rather, its about how the company (or in the case of a duopoly, companies) uses its market share to influence the overall market.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Antitrust-US-AMD-Dell,9007.html
Intel Accused of Giving Dell $6 Billion in Perks