Replies to post #16699 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[imho]

Mas,

None of us know the details, so we can only speculate. However, I can think of one scenario that probably occurs and also proves that the customers are the one who lose out. Here is my scenario.

Intel has agreements that pay for portions of an OEM’s advertising expense in which Intel products are sold. The OEM decides to include in the advertisement systems that include AMD products. Intel tells the OEM that it will not subsidize the advertisement as long as there are competitors products. AMD cries foul and gives this as a prime example of Intel “forcing” OEM’s not to sell AMD products. Personally, I think Intel is correct here, but that is my opinion. If the OEM wants to showcase AMD products they should do so separately and should not expect Intel to subsidize them. The OEM wants both and so Intel is forced not to give the OEM discounts. This is great for AMD since Intel’s products are now more expensive vis a vis AMD’s. But the end users, who buy from the OEM’s and who were given the Intel discount, will no longer be getting it. So under these circumstances the CUSTEMER is being screwed. Intel is right.

IMHO

[morrowinder]

Mas:

He's not ignoring it, it didn't happen. If you actually look at what happened the japanese are really assuming alot, and interpreting certain actions like rebates as designed to exclude amd. I think if you looked at the evidence you find that there is no direct statement anywhere where intel said to an oem: we want you to stop buying AMD.

Anti trust 101 is : You can not do exclusive dealing. You cannot require an oem to only buy intel. And FYI: design refreshes happen 3 times a year so its very hard to do the scenario suggested. Do you think intel has gotten a clean bill of health from multiple investigations because it is stupid and unaware of anti-trust law? I know you want to believe all the AMD crying but please. Give them some credit for brains...