George Macdonald wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 14:36:37 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:



George Macdonald wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 07:58:49 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 05:51:21 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:



Intel marketing has been a driver for turning computers into
commodities. They understand what it takes to get vendors to move
merchandise, and they do it. AMD wants to argue that Intel's
aggressiveness was aimed at eliminating AMD as a competitor. Intel
will argue that its aggressivenss has been aimed at increasing sales
and nothing else.

Bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct supplier/customer
relationship, and "stealing" AMD systems off their promotional floor space
is more than aggressive. It's depriving the public of a choice - I don't
think most people will be too pleased at those revelation.

Hi-jacking industry standards groups and blocking membership is sure to
make those admitted wonder when it might be their turn.

Intel throws it weight around. The most powerful player always does.
France is fond of berating the US for the way it throws its weight
around in international forums, but when France was the dominant player
in world affairs, it played the game of diplomacy in exactly the same
way.

sigh For the umpteenth time, the question the court must answer is if
it's more than throwing "weight" around. Ford, GM and even Chrysler at one
time, throw their weight around.

You threw in an issue (participation in industry standards groups) that
has nothing to do with the court case. I responded with an observation
about the universality of the behavior you are objecting to. Now you
say that whether the behavior is universal or not has nothing to do
with the court case... but then, neither did the issue you brought up
in the first place.

It's in the complaint. Obviously you have not read it and *obviously* I
reject your claim of universality... can you not read? Run around in
circular arguments if you want - it won't help.

This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous
hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it. *You*
made a comment about how players in the industry would react to Intel's
behavior in industry standard groups. How industry players will react
will not be settled by a judge or a jury, and it doesn't matter whether
Intel's behavior is in the complaint or not. One way of predicting how
they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar
situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their
dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it
because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret
is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an
enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so.

snip


In the end, though, none of that will matter to a court case, which
will be determined on technical considerations that will probably leave
all of us shaking our heads in bewilderment. It's the prospect of such
an outcome, hard on the heels of the Microsoft grand waste of taxpayer
resources, that leaves me unenthusiastic about seeing more productive
resources going into the pockets of lawyers who will settle nothing.
Microsoft is more profitable than ever.

M$ had *no* real tangible competitor. By the time the court case rolled
around it was too late for even the alternate network companies.


And why do you imagine the AMD case against Intel will be any more
successful?

AMD has the clearly better product. Even the companies which have been
victims of the rackets have decided to rail against the "cease & desist"...
except Intel's retail arm: Dell.

That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has
a better product."

RM