Scotteq
Diamond Member
- Apr 10, 2008
- 5,276
- 5
- 0
Nice, and well written example.
It does have a pretty big hole, though: Exclusivity agreements between individual corporations are not illegal. Tough on competitors? Absolutely. Really Tough on the poor competing sales guy who has Quota and a name on his target list (s)he knows will never sign? Ohhh Yeah! (...take your 6 months draw, and bail!!)
But in an Anti Trust world, it would have to be shown that such agreements as the one made with Dell were imposed upon (nearly) everyone and that INTC's customers were at least strongly pressured to sign one as a condition of doing business. So in order to prove anti trust, the agreements Intel had at the same time with other customers, such as Compaq, HP, IBM/Lenovo, Sony, (etc, etc, etc..) would have to have similar exclusivity clauses, and the inclusion of such a clause would be 'mandatory' to do business with INTC.
Establishing that pattern of business on a universal level is a much, much bigger (and more difficult) charge than the Dell example being used here.
To make a paralell to everyday life: If Mr Hunky Guy c*ck blocks you away from the Hotty Of All Hotties and he gains an "exclusivity agreement" with her, that's you getting beat. It is not that he has a Monopoly on Women.
If all the Women in the area are somehow forced to sleep only with Mr Hunky Guy, and other men were not permitted to compete for any of them, then that is a Monopoly.
So: AMD got c*ck blocked by Mr Hunky INTCguy for some of their customers. NOT A NICE THING for INTCguy to do. And INTCguy got hollered at for it. But not a monopoly.
It does have a pretty big hole, though: Exclusivity agreements between individual corporations are not illegal. Tough on competitors? Absolutely. Really Tough on the poor competing sales guy who has Quota and a name on his target list (s)he knows will never sign? Ohhh Yeah! (...take your 6 months draw, and bail!!)
But in an Anti Trust world, it would have to be shown that such agreements as the one made with Dell were imposed upon (nearly) everyone and that INTC's customers were at least strongly pressured to sign one as a condition of doing business. So in order to prove anti trust, the agreements Intel had at the same time with other customers, such as Compaq, HP, IBM/Lenovo, Sony, (etc, etc, etc..) would have to have similar exclusivity clauses, and the inclusion of such a clause would be 'mandatory' to do business with INTC.
Establishing that pattern of business on a universal level is a much, much bigger (and more difficult) charge than the Dell example being used here.
To make a paralell to everyday life: If Mr Hunky Guy c*ck blocks you away from the Hotty Of All Hotties and he gains an "exclusivity agreement" with her, that's you getting beat. It is not that he has a Monopoly on Women.
If all the Women in the area are somehow forced to sleep only with Mr Hunky Guy, and other men were not permitted to compete for any of them, then that is a Monopoly.
So: AMD got c*ck blocked by Mr Hunky INTCguy for some of their customers. NOT A NICE THING for INTCguy to do. And INTCguy got hollered at for it. But not a monopoly.
Last edited: