Replies to post #14514 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[wbmw]

Sgolds, Re: The discussion came up with the assertion that Intel could lower their ASPs to starve out AMD, and still not violate Sherman, because they would still make a profit. I think marketing costs count towards making a profit.

Ok, so then what's the point of comparing equal ASPs for Intel and AMD? Does Intel need to lower prices below AMD's to starve them out?

[Elmer Phud]

Sgolds -

I think that the obvious is now shown to be true - the fully burdened CPU cost for Intel is way higher than AMD. Thus, Intel could not lower their price to be below AMD without violating anti-trust law.

I guess like some others you're convinced yourself that your argument is bullet proof but I'm not convinced. Remember you've got to convince a jury that you've violated anti-trust law and you guys haven't even begun to address all the differing variables that could be brought up to show that the costs you've included should not all be burdened onto CPUs. What proportion of those Marketing costs should be distributed across the other product lines? What portion of the R&D goes to Flash, Wireless, Comms, networking, automotive, consumer electronics, embedded controllers, military, xscale, chipsets etc etc on and on. What about depreciation? You can't dump that all on Processors either. A smokescreen like you couldn't imagine would make proving anything far too complex to ever succeed.