Intel has been dubbed EVIL

[craftech]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-301938.html

AMD has not ruled out moving its battle against Intel's antitrust behavior onto Australian soil.

"AMD said it had never filed an antitrust complaint against Intel in Australia, but would not confirm or deny whether the company would consider filing a complaint in the country given the European win."
----------------------
It will also be interesting to see what the new justice department does in terms of setting a different policy toward antitrust enforcement in the US. The FTC is currently probing Intel.

http://www.businessweek.com/te...0511_348063_page_2.htm

How Intel holds onto its dominant market share is at the core of AMD's complaints to regulators. Intel held 77.3% of worldwide PC microprocessor shipments in the first quarter, compared with 22.3% for AMD, according to market researcher International Data Corp. AMD contends it doesn't hold a larger piece of the market because of subsidies Intel pays to computer makers to reimburse them for advertising costs, and because of threats to stop the payments if vendors don't buy enough from Intel. Mike Silverman, a spokesman for AMD, said in an e-mail that the company is "encouraged that the FTC is conducting a serious investigation," and called on it and the Justice Dept. to "investigate thoroughly" its claims.
-----------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124220736617414635.html

Intel has blamed AMD for stirring up government scrutiny, and argued that any problems at its rival have stemmed from AMD's own missteps rather than actions by Intel. But now three regulatory bodies that have examined evidence from computer makers -- in Europe, Japan and South Korea -- have dismissed Intel's arguments.................Intel said it would challenge Wednesday's decision at the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance. The court process is likely to take years.
The appeal will be a tough struggle. If the facts back up the EU's charges, a dominant company paying rebates to keep a competitor out of a market is a "pretty classic exclusion case," said John Pheasant, an antitrust lawyer in London at the firm Hogan & Hartson.

Interesting.

John

 

[dmens]

The only ones who could enter at that point would be companies that are even bigger

How about private investors? In this specific case, Abu Dhabi was able to buy almost 10% of AMD with what is basically their pocket change. Just a few more investors and you have a group that can easily match Intel's deep pockets. Monopolies with high prices invite competition.

You assume people will buy processors regardless of price in a monopoly situation. I believe processors are a commodity item and even the server market will dry up with outrageous pricing. You also assume companies will gobble each other up in the long term. History has demonstrated that huge corporations suffer from inefficiency and other internal problems just like every other huge organization, and will eventually plateau and/or wither away.

Lastly, looking at this specific example, I fail to see how any consumer will benefit from this decision.

 

[bgeh]

You assume people will buy processors regardless of price in a monopoly situation. I believe processors are a commodity item and even the server market will dry up with outrageous pricing. You also assume companies will gobble each other up in the long term. History has demonstrated that huge corporations suffer from inefficiency and other internal problems just like every other huge organization, and will eventually plateau and/or wither away.

------

While I can agree with that statement I also have to bring up something I consider to be a flaw in the efficient market hypothesis or equivalently your statement above - namely that while these things happen, it does take a long time for it to happen, and the truth is most of us don't live long enough lives to see the end of this monopoly (or equivalently, market returning to some semblence of efficiency). In effect what we have is some generations of people profiting from an efficient market/lack of monopoly and others suffering under an inefficient market/monopoly. Is that truly fair?

*or putting it another way, the consumer never dies, they just get replaced by successive generations of consumers, but the 'unfairness' point comes in the 'loser' generations compared to the 'winner' generations

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: dmens
If you actually watched the Al-Jazeera video, you'd know it has English subtitles. When did I claim to speak Arabic? If you want more, go check out MEMRI. They take broadcasts of many Middle Eastern media sources and translate them to show the insanity of it all. You'll probably bitch about bias because MEMRI is run by Israelis, but hey, maybe you can go learn Arabic and prove their translations wrong.
===============

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...dispatch.brianwhitaker

=================

instead of serving the public interest which they are required to do

There is no such requirement, even in the so-called public media outlets, because the public interest is impossible to cover across the entire population. As such, the term "public interest" is simply an argument you use to demand the media to serve your own personal bias.

"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the ?public interest, convenience and necessity.? This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license. "

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/de..._and_broadcasting.html

===================

And your example is weak. You pick on a single document out of many sent to the EPA then claim that their omission to mention it was sent by an organization headed by a former Bush appointee (ooga booga!) is evidence of bias?

You missed the other part of it because you didn't read it..............and it wasn't even that long. Sheesh!

John

You also completely ignored my request to challenge the content of the OP by demonstrating that there were somehow falsehoods in it as in the WSJ article I cited. So how about it.

I also expanded upon the case with other articles in the post above this one to stay on topic here. What do you think about those articles including the WSJ article on the Intel case?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

Do you have a better solution for keeping companies in line? A company is supposed to do whatever it takes to maximize its profit. Unless there are financial disincentives (or jail time for executives) for breaking the law, why would a company bother obeying the law?

I consider government intervention in private enterprise to be unlawful with minimal exceptions, and the consumer should be the ultimate arbiter of business ethics. So I don't have any proposal to stop private business from executing what should be their lawful property rights which have been unjustly taken away by government.

I'm curious, have you ever read AMD's complaint? I'd be really interested in your take on a few parts of it.

Yes I have, a bit quickly. It is a frequent deate topic at the water cooler. More than happy to hear another point of view, please ask away.

You need to realize that most people have been *conditioned* to accept Mega Corporate abuses for the last 8 years. This is not "political" .. it is fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...ney%20antitrust&st=cse

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.

and now it has completely changed - 100% turnaround

Ms. Varney said that the administration rejected the impulse to go easy on antitrust enforcement during weak economic times.

Instead, she said, severe recessions can provide dangerous incentives for large and dominating companies to engage in predatory behavior that harms consumers and weakens competition.

?There is no adequate substitute for a competitive market, particularly during times of economic distress,? she said. ?Vigorous antitrust enforcement must play a significant role in the government?s response to economic crises to ensure that markets remain competitive.?

The announcement is aimed at making sure that no court or party to a lawsuit can cite the Bush administration policy as the government?s official view in any pending cases. Ms. Varney warned judges and litigants in antitrust lawsuits not involving the government to ignore the Bush administration?s policies

this is a change of policy for at least the next 3-3/4 years .. probably 7-3/4 *more* years .. intel better get used to and MS also

it has never been OK to do what intel did.
- what excuse do they give?

They are gonna get pounded by an even BIGGER fine from our OWN courts
- very shortly

 

[Matt1970]

The whole thing just doesn't make sence. Why would you PAY someone to buy your product? Wouldn't you just give them a better price on that product to make up for any money you would pay then to buy it?

Ok,, maybe they did pay them to buy the product. Wouldn't that be the same thing as a manufacturers rebate?

 

[dmens]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...dispatch.brianwhitaker

Oh no, MEMRI employees used to be in the IDF. Well since Israel has conscription, I guess no Israeli citizen can be trusted to translate the racist drivel that comes out of Arab media.

"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the ?public interest, convenience and necessity.? This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license. "

Nice, you quote the FCC which also has no idea how to define so-called "public interest". Who will be the judge on what is public interest? You? Like I said, it is a totally subjective term that is open to political abuse.

By the way, that FCC link is for wireless broadcasters, your previous post demanding the "public interest" be served is in regards to a newspaper which has no such obligation. But even broadcasters should not be held hostage by this blatantly vague political ruling.

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: dmens

Do you have a better solution for keeping companies in line? A company is supposed to do whatever it takes to maximize its profit. Unless there are financial disincentives (or jail time for executives) for breaking the law, why would a company bother obeying the law?

I consider government intervention in private enterprise to be unlawful with minimal exceptions, and the consumer should be the ultimate arbiter of business ethics. So I don't have any proposal to stop private business from executing what should be their lawful property rights which have been unjustly taken away by government.

I'm curious, have you ever read AMD's complaint? I'd be really interested in your take on a few parts of it.

Yes I have, a bit quickly. It is a frequent deate topic at the water cooler. More than happy to hear another point of view, please ask away.

You need to realize that most people have been *conditioned* to accept Mega Corporate abuses for the last 8 years. This is not "political" .. it is fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...ney%20antitrust&st=cse

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.

and now it has completely changed - 100% turnaround

Ms. Varney said that the administration rejected the impulse to go easy on antitrust enforcement during weak economic times.

Instead, she said, severe recessions can provide dangerous incentives for large and dominating companies to engage in predatory behavior that harms consumers and weakens competition.

?There is no adequate substitute for a competitive market, particularly during times of economic distress,? she said. ?Vigorous antitrust enforcement must play a significant role in the government?s response to economic crises to ensure that markets remain competitive.?

The announcement is aimed at making sure that no court or party to a lawsuit can cite the Bush administration policy as the government?s official view in any pending cases. Ms. Varney warned judges and litigants in antitrust lawsuits not involving the government to ignore the Bush administration?s policies

this is a change of policy for at least the next 3-3/4 years .. probably 7-3/4 *more* years .. intel better get used to and MS also

it has never been OK to do what intel did.
- what excuse do they give?

They are gonna get pounded by an even BIGGER fine from our OWN courts
- very shortly

I think it will take awhile for the public to get used to the justice department working in their interest instead of corporate interest. At least the justice department is constrained by filibusters.

John

 

[dmens]

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.

Good. It is an unjust law designed to shake down private enterprise and deprive them of their property rights.

I've been conditioned to accept "corporate abuse"? Funny, I didn't even grow up in a capitalist country. All that libertarian indoctrination in China... so evil.

I am amused by your overly joyous reaction at the thought of yet more ridiculous government intervention. Can you even explain how you will gain anything, as a consumer, as a result of these government actions? Or are you just conditioned to hate private business regardless of market reality?

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: dmens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...dispatch.brianwhitaker

Oh no, MEMRI employees used to be in the IDF. Well since Israel has conscription, I guess no Israeli citizen can be trusted to translate the racist drivel that comes out of Arab media.

"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the ?public interest, convenience and necessity.? This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license. "

Nice, you quote the FCC which also has no idea how to define so-called "public interest". Who will be the judge on what is public interest? You? Like I said, it is a totally subjective term that is open to political abuse.

By the way, that FCC link is for wireless broadcasters, your previous post demanding the "public interest" be served is in regards to a newspaper which has no such obligation. But even broadcasters should not be held hostage by this blatantly vague political ruling.

dmens,

You know you are losing these arguments by a combination of your selective responses, your half reading of mine, and most of all your inability to refrain from name calling.

Let's drop this subject - OK?

John

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: bgeh

While I can agree with that statement I also have to bring up something I consider to be a flaw in the efficient market hypothesis or equivalently your statement above - namely that while these things happen, it does take a long time for it to happen, and the truth is most of us don't live long enough lives to see the end of this monopoly (or equivalently, market returning to some semblence of efficiency). In effect what we have is some generations of people profiting from an efficient market/lack of monopoly and others suffering under an inefficient market/monopoly. Is that truly fair?

There is no proof one way or another because it has never happened. The only long-lasting huge monopolies in history have been government created, funded and mandated.

To address your last question, what is fair? Is it fair to deprive the property rights of a person or group in an attempt to benefit another group? The monopoly only "wins" if consumers buy their goods and services regardless of price. The consumers' most effective tactic is to simply opt out.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: craftech
You know you are losing these arguments by a combination of your selective responses, your half reading of mine, and most of all your inability to refrain from name calling.

Let's drop this subject - OK?

John

LOL losing. Sure, have a great day. :thumbsup:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.

Good. It is an unjust law designed to shake down private enterprise and deprive them of their property rights.

I've been conditioned to accept "corporate abuse"? Funny, I didn't even grow up in a capitalist country. All that libertarian indoctrination in China... so evil.

I am amused by your overly joyous reaction at the thought of yet more ridiculous government intervention. Can you even explain how you will gain anything, as a consumer, as a result of these government actions? Or are you just conditioned to hate private business regardless of market reality?

it is a law that protects US against schemers like intel's senior board
- they should be ashamed of themselves

they have no ethics

intel simply needs to be put back on a leash; and if they still can't comprehend it, perhaps there should be jail time also

the *reason* the economy is an epic failure is the last US Government failed Administration [at the least] allowed Mega Corps to Screw US

 

[spylake]

The whole thing strikes me as odd. Go to a McDonald's and you get Coke. Go to a Dairy Queen and it Pepsi.

Negotiating exclusive contract is hardly uncommon. Why it this different when an Intel negotiates a better deal with a Dell to use Intel only?

 

[apoppin]

I am amused by your overly joyous reaction at the thought of yet more ridiculous government intervention. Can you even explain how you will gain anything, as a consumer, as a result of these government actions? Or are you just conditioned to hate private business regardless of market reality?

i AM private business - for 30 years running my own successful company i am retiring from this year to pursue my hobby - creating my own mega company

If i am ever so screwed up to do what intel did, i belong in jail with the other schemers and made-offs in the world
- one does not unfairly cut out the competition like intel does to AMD; it is finally recognized by the thinking half of the world as bad ethics

AND - YES, we benefit because AMD can finally have a CHANCE to compete fairly - we should see price drop and competition between the two companies increase

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: dmens

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.

Good. It is an unjust law designed to shake down private enterprise and deprive them of their property rights.

I've been conditioned to accept "corporate abuse"? Funny, I didn't even grow up in a capitalist country. All that libertarian indoctrination in China... so evil.

I am amused by your overly joyous reaction at the thought of yet more ridiculous government intervention. Can you even explain how you will gain anything, as a consumer, as a result of these government actions? Or are you just conditioned to hate private business regardless of market reality?

it is a law that protects US against schemers like intel's senior board
- they should be ashamed of themselves

they have no ethics

intel simply needs to be put back on a leash; and if they still can't comprehend it, perhaps there should be jail time also

the *reason* the economy is an epic failure is the last US Government failed Administration [at the least] allowed Mega Corps to Screw US

They used to call it Reaganomics, but since Reagan died the American News Media helped the efforts of Grover Norquist's "Reagan Legacy Project" by rewriting history for Reagan. Regan's approval rating is higher now than it was when he was president thanks to the media.

Throughout the 1980s, political conservatism in federal enforcement complemented the Supreme Court's doctrine of nonintervention. The administration of President Ronald Reagan reduced the budgets of the FTC and the Department of Justice, leaving them with limited resources for enforcement. Enforcement efforts followed a restrictive agenda of prosecuting cases of output restrictions and large mergers of a horizontal nature (involving firms within the same industry and at the same level of production). Mergers of companies into conglomerates, on the other hand, were looked on favorably, and the years 1984 and 1985 produced the greatest increase in corporate acquisitions in the nation's history.

As the Supreme Court strengthened requirements for evidence, injury, and the right to bring suit, antitrust cases became harder for plaintiffs to win. Most decisions in this period narrowed the reach of antitrust.

http://iris.nyit.edu/~shartman/mba0101/trust.htm

John

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dmens

The only ones who could enter at that point would be companies that are even bigger

How about private investors? In this specific case, Abu Dhabi was able to buy almost 10% of AMD with what is basically their pocket change. Just a few more investors and you have a group that can easily match Intel's deep pockets. Monopolies with high prices invite competition.

If large companies could push smaller companies out of the market on a whim, why would anyone invest in smaller companies? Abu Dhabi would be better off buying a large company (e.g. Walmart), squashing its competitors, and then using that money to buy a large company in the next market they want to dominate. We'd be in a straightforward "he who has the gold rules" situation.

You assume people will buy processors regardless of price in a monopoly situation. I believe processors are a commodity item and even the server market will dry up with outrageous pricing. You also assume companies will gobble each other up in the long term. History has demonstrated that huge corporations suffer from inefficiency and other internal problems just like every other huge organization, and will eventually plateau and/or wither away.

No, people don't need to be buying many processors for the monopolist to maintain control. The monopolist only needs to keep the market big enough that a startup can't suddenly grab a large chunk of it (to keep the barrier to entry high). Additionally, if the large company can do something like add new instructions every 10 years and ensure software uses them, they can use patents to prevent anyone from producing alternatives compatible with existing software (further raising the barrier to entry).

As for corporations gobbling each other up... car companies? Microprocessor vendors? Graphics card companies? Electric guitar makers? Cell phone companies? Camera makers? Maybe they'll eventually fail, but it sure takes a long time and there's no guarantee that the resulting supply hole won't be filled by a large player from another market. When you have an oligopoly and one company fails, the rest pick up the demand (e.g. CompUSA dies, and Best Buy gets most of the business... AMC fails and Chrysler buys the remains).

Lastly, looking at this specific example, I fail to see how any consumer will benefit from this decision.

I think the idea is that the next time AMD kicks Intel's butt (Opteron vs. P4), OEMs will be free to buy the better processors without fear of retribution because someone will have an eye on Intel and Intel will be scared of a large fine, and consumers will get faster chips for more $$$ or as-fast chips for less $$$. Ordinary consumers won't be stuck buying tomorrow's P4 because all the available machines from HP/Dell/Sony won't be Intel-only.

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: spylake
The whole thing strikes me as odd. Go to a McDonald's and you get Coke. Go to a Dairy Queen and it Pepsi.

Negotiating exclusive contract is hardly uncommon. Why it this different when an Intel negotiates a better deal with a Dell to use Intel only?

The charges are that Intel illegally coerced PC makers to use its chips according to several of the articles cited in this thread.

Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturers Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC for buying all or almost all their CPUs, from Intel and paid them to stop or delay the launch of computers based on AMD chips.

EU regulators said Intel also paid Germany's biggest electronics retailer, Media Saturn Holding (Media Market superstores) ? from 2002 to 2007 to only stock Intel-based computers.

This meant workers at AMD's biggest European plant in Dresden, Germany, could not buy AMD-based personal computers at their city's main PC store.

John

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: craftech

Originally posted by: spylake
The whole thing strikes me as odd. Go to a McDonald's and you get Coke. Go to a Dairy Queen and it Pepsi.

Negotiating exclusive contract is hardly uncommon. Why it this different when an Intel negotiates a better deal with a Dell to use Intel only?

The charges are that Intel illegally coerced PC makers to use its chips according to several of the articles cited in this thread.

Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturers Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC for buying all or almost all their CPUs, from Intel and paid them to stop or delay the launch of computers based on AMD chips.

EU regulators said Intel also paid Germany's biggest electronics retailer, Media Saturn Holding (Media Market superstores) ? from 2002 to 2007 to only stock Intel-based computers.

This meant workers at AMD's biggest European plant in Dresden, Germany, could not buy AMD-based personal computers at their city's main PC store.


John

None of these SHOCKING revelations are hearsay; this is the verdict: Guilty!
.. intel is THREE times BUSTED in court - twice with no bother to even appeal

The ONLY reason Intel is appealing this fine is because it is HUGE. Not a slap on the wrist.
- i am thinking perhaps the current administration may even ask for some prison. i understand that they acted even more unethically here; probably because they knew the former failed administration looked the other way - or even approved of their abuse and lack of morals/ethics.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: LoneNinja
Since so many people have mentioned cheap prices, lets not forget how over priced the E8XXX series is. I bet we see massive price drops once AMD releases their 45nm Athlon II.

??? They are Intel's best dual Core... of course they have a premium attached to them...Intel also has plenty of Value Dual Cores too Ala the Pentium Dual Core E5xxx and Core 2 Duo E7xxx.

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: craftech

Originally posted by: spylake
The whole thing strikes me as odd. Go to a McDonald's and you get Coke. Go to a Dairy Queen and it Pepsi.

Negotiating exclusive contract is hardly uncommon. Why it this different when an Intel negotiates a better deal with a Dell to use Intel only?

The charges are that Intel illegally coerced PC makers to use its chips according to several of the articles cited in this thread.

Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturers Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC for buying all or almost all their CPUs, from Intel and paid them to stop or delay the launch of computers based on AMD chips.

EU regulators said Intel also paid Germany's biggest electronics retailer, Media Saturn Holding (Media Market superstores) ? from 2002 to 2007 to only stock Intel-based computers.

This meant workers at AMD's biggest European plant in Dresden, Germany, could not buy AMD-based personal computers at their city's main PC store.


John

None of these SHOCKING revelations are hearsay; this is the verdict: Guilty!
.. intel is THREE times BUSTED in court - twice with no bother to even appeal

The ONLY reason Intel is appealing this fine is because it is HUGE. Not a slap on the wrist.
- i am thinking perhaps the current administration may even ask for some prison. i understand that they acted even more unethically here; probably because they knew the former failed administration looked the other way - or even approved of their abuse and lack of morals/ethics.

It is a very large fine. The appeal will take years and it seems they will lose. In terms of the Microsoft case, they admitted it and immediately started plea bargaining. I think the details are in the WSJ article I cited above.

John

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i AM private business - for 30 years running my own successful company i am retiring from this year to pursue my hobby - creating my own mega company

If i am ever so screwed up to do what intel did, i belong in jail with the other schemers and made-offs in the world
- one does not unfairly cut out the competition like intel does to AMD; it is finally recognized by the thinking half of the world as bad ethics

AND - YES, we benefit because AMD can finally have a CHANCE to compete fairly - we should see price drop and competition between the two companies increase

you do not represent private business. you're a person who does not respect the universal nature of property rights. instead you prefer a world where property rights are selectively applied for some absurd notion of "fairness".

and you still believe prices will drop. if you really run a business, you would see that this decision will result in simultaneous price hikes. government intervention is an overhead. overhead results in an artificial increase in prices. simple economics.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: apoppin
i AM private business - for 30 years running my own successful company i am retiring from this year to pursue my hobby - creating my own mega company

If i am ever so screwed up to do what intel did, i belong in jail with the other schemers and made-offs in the world
- one does not unfairly cut out the competition like intel does to AMD; it is finally recognized by the thinking half of the world as bad ethics

AND - YES, we benefit because AMD can finally have a CHANCE to compete fairly - we should see price drop and competition between the two companies increase

you do not represent private business. you're a person who does not respect the universal nature of property rights. instead you prefer a world where property rights are selectively applied for some absurd notion of "fairness".

and you still believe prices will drop. if you really run a business, you would see that this decision will result in simultaneous price hikes. government intervention is an overhead. overhead results in an artificial increase in prices. simple economics.

Sure i do run a business; retiring from one - began another as a hobby - click on my sig - i launched it in October; 8-1/2 months ago
- fastest growing tech site on the Internet for the last 8 months

Government intervention is required for Intel's *criminal* actions. All over the world courts of real justice disagree with the schemers that make up intel's senior board.

As someone who NEVER had a personal AMD system until my Notebook - LAST MONTH - i supported intel
- but what they did shows no moral fiber or ethics

do their employees share intel's lack of ethics?

i am beginning to think so

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
If large companies could push smaller companies out of the market on a whim, why would anyone invest in smaller companies? Abu Dhabi would be better off buying a large company (e.g. Walmart), squashing its competitors, and then using that money to buy a large company in the next market they want to dominate. We'd be in a straightforward "he who has the gold rules" situation.

In each market they seek to dominate they have to spend a lot of money for an uncertain return, then face the prospect of increased long-term competition if they tried to raise prices.

Besides, would it be fair to deny people with gold the right to invest as they wish? Property rights should be equally applied to all people.

No, people don't need to be buying many processors for the monopolist to maintain control. The monopolist only needs to keep the market big enough that a startup can't suddenly grab a large chunk of it (to keep the barrier to entry high). Additionally, if the large company can do something like add new instructions every 10 years and ensure software uses them, they can use patents to prevent anyone from producing alternatives compatible with existing software (further raising the barrier to entry).

Good point regarding patents, the current system makes a mockery of individual property rights. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

How can the monopolist keep the market large and keep prices outrageously high at the same time? Those are opposing forces. A high market price lowers the relative entry barrier startup cost.

As for corporations gobbling each other up... car companies? Microprocessor vendors? Graphics card companies? Electric guitar makers? Cell phone companies? Camera makers? Maybe they'll eventually fail, but it sure takes a long time and there's no guarantee that the resulting supply hole won't be filled by a large player from another market. When you have an oligopoly and one company fails, the rest pick up the demand (e.g. CompUSA dies, and Best Buy gets most of the business... AMC fails and Chrysler buys the remains).

Heh and look what is happening to Chrysler now, an unlawful, unconstitutional bankruptcy orchestrated by the government to pay a political debt.

Anyways, all those failing companies will be replaced by better and more efficient ones producing better products. If the failing company really have a sound product and they are failing because they are being crushed by a dominant firm, then they can find investors to support them. Isn't that what AMD is doing?

I think the idea is that the next time AMD kicks Intel's butt (Opteron vs. P4), OEMs will be free to buy the better processors without fear of retribution because someone will have an eye on Intel and Intel will be scared of a large fine, and consumers will get faster chips for more $$$ or as-fast chips for less $$$. Ordinary consumers won't be stuck buying tomorrow's P4 because all the available machines from HP/Dell/Sony won't be Intel-only.

The manufacturers bought whatever would have made them more money. In the Opteron vs P4 case, consumers got slower chips for a less money because P4 was cheap to make. They could have bought a faster chip for more money, because K8 was on the market the entire time.

In the mainstream segment, price is the major concern, and the K8 was never competitively priced until the release of C2D (in my opinion). If AMD wanted K8 to compete in that segment, they should have priced appropriately. Then the OEM's would have used them. Look at happened after the C2D release. With the price cuts, AMD laptops/desktops showed up all over Best Buy.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: apoppin
do their employees share intel's lack of ethics?

i am beginning to think so

your sense of ethics is sick and perverse to me because unlike you, i believe property rights are absolute and universal. you can keep posting those little roses and put "criminal" in big bold stars and rant about your subjective notion of "fairness" and "real justice", knock yourself out, i won't be responding to you any more. have a nice day.