AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
YKhan wrote:

What is kind of funny is that you still don't believe that Intel is
already a monopoly. US antitrust laws only require you to have 40%
marketshare to be considered a monopoly. Intel is well above the limit.


Care to provide a citation for that assertion?

Yup:

"According to Roland Vogl, Executive Director for the Stanford Program
in Law at Stanford University, AMD carries the burden of proof. 'First,
AMD has to prove that Intel actually has monopoly power, which would be
40 percent in the US - that should be a non-issue here.'"
http://www.tomshardware.com/business.../index-02.html


Remind me not to hire you or Tom as a lawyer. If Tom is quoting Roland
Vogel correctly, I'm not sure I'd vote to give him tenure, but I
suspect he is not being quoted correctly.

If you're sure you know better than Mr. Vogl, so go argue it with him.
Or go argue it with Tom on his forums, if you think he didn't quote
Vogl right. You asked for a reference, and I gave you one.

This is how is works, Yousuf: when you quote someone else as
authoritative, it means you believe that what you are quoting is
credible. This discussion isn't taking place in Tom's Hardware Forum.
It's taking place here.

What you have quoted isn't credible, and I've given what I believe to
be credible evidence (which you snipped) as to why.

If you don't want to defend your own assertion, or if you believe that
a web page opinion is authoritative as opposed to straight text out of
the public record, you go on believing that, but I don't believe your
assertion, and you haven't defended it.

After you've successfully gotten Tom -- or Mr. Roland Vogl -- to back
down from their assertions, then come back and tell us all about how
you were right and Tom or Roland were wrong. ;-)

I have no interest at all in participating in Tom's Hardware Forums,
and your suggestion that I should do so is ludicrous.

This case will work itself out, as the Microsoft case worked itself
out. From my layman's perspective, Microsoft's behavior was about as
egregious as anything I've seen in my lifetime, and the "remedies"
taken in the Microsoft case were meaningless.

If the judgment against Intel is anything like you are hoping for, it
will be because there is something about this case I don't understand.
That's always a possibility, but I think it unlikely that it will be
you that educates me.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
If you're sure you know better than Mr. Vogl, so go argue it with him.
Or go argue it with Tom on his forums, if you think he didn't quote
Vogl right. You asked for a reference, and I gave you one.


This is how is works, Yousuf: when you quote someone else as
authoritative, it means you believe that what you are quoting is
credible. This discussion isn't taking place in Tom's Hardware Forum.
It's taking place here.

What you have quoted isn't credible, and I've given what I believe to
be credible evidence (which you snipped) as to why.

If you don't want to defend your own assertion, or if you believe that
a web page opinion is authoritative as opposed to straight text out of
the public record, you go on believing that, but I don't believe your
assertion, and you haven't defended it.

Okay then, I'll also tell you how it works with me. I quoted a website
which quoted a lawyer they interviewed with some knowledge about
anti-trust cases. I'm not a lawyer, but the interviewee is. Until
another lawyer with similar background tells me that this first lawyer
is full of it, then I have no reason to disagree with him. Or someone
proves that the website misquoted him.

If you think you've discovered a flaw with his statement, then take it
up with him directly. Or take it up with the website that interviewed him.

Long story short, the interviewee is a lawyer. You are not.

Yousuf Khan

Robert Myers wrote:
YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
YKhan wrote:

What is kind of funny is that you still don't believe that Intel is
already a monopoly. US antitrust laws only require you to have 40%
marketshare to be considered a monopoly. Intel is well above the limit.


Care to provide a citation for that assertion?

Yup:

"According to Roland Vogl, Executive Director for the Stanford Program
in Law at Stanford University, AMD carries the burden of proof. 'First,
AMD has to prove that Intel actually has monopoly power, which would be
40 percent in the US - that should be a non-issue here.'"
http://www.tomshardware.com/business.../index-02.html


Remind me not to hire you or Tom as a lawyer. If Tom is quoting Roland
Vogel correctly, I'm not sure I'd vote to give him tenure, but I
suspect he is not being quoted correctly.

If you're sure you know better than Mr. Vogl, so go argue it with him.
Or go argue it with Tom on his forums, if you think he didn't quote
Vogl right. You asked for a reference, and I gave you one.

This is how is works, Yousuf: when you quote someone else as
authoritative, it means you believe that what you are quoting is
credible. This discussion isn't taking place in Tom's Hardware Forum.
It's taking place here.

What you have quoted isn't credible, and I've given what I believe to
be credible evidence (which you snipped) as to why.

If you don't want to defend your own assertion, or if you believe that
a web page opinion is authoritative as opposed to straight text out of
the public record, you go on believing that, but I don't believe your
assertion, and you haven't defended it.

After you've successfully gotten Tom -- or Mr. Roland Vogl -- to back
down from their assertions, then come back and tell us all about how
you were right and Tom or Roland were wrong. ;-)

I have no interest at all in participating in Tom's Hardware Forums,
and your suggestion that I should do so is ludicrous.

This case will work itself out, as the Microsoft case worked itself
out. From my layman's perspective, Microsoft's behavior was about as
egregious as anything I've seen in my lifetime, and the "remedies"
taken in the Microsoft case were meaningless.

If the judgment against Intel is anything like you are hoping for, it
will be because there is something about this case I don't understand.
That's always a possibility, but I think it unlikely that it will be
you that educates me.

RM

RM,

I am a silent reader of this forum and I enjoy reading all discussions
here. I tried posting earlier, but something went wrong and it didn't
go through. Let me first thank you for keeping the discussion here very
civilized even after getting pounded here!

I am not a lawyer and so I cant comment on the technical details of
monopoly. I do agree with you that the 40% cannot be a clear cut
definition of monopoly. Here is the case wher it cant be applied- in a
two player market, if one has 40%, the other will have 60%. So which
one is a monopoly? How do you prove that a company has a monoploy. Here
is a link. Not a very authoritative, but beleivable.

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html

From a market share point of view, there's no clear cut definition, and
it should not be (in my views). But a clear cut definition has been the
ability to control prices and exclude competition. I think this is a
very appropriate way of defining it. Based on AMD's allegation, this
should not be a difficult task. I dont think it matters that there were
no written contracts to show exclusionary rebates, as the judges (and
the jury) have to be convinced that a threat of any kind was made to
exclude competition.

I am very much with AMD on this one. You do agree that Microsoft has
abused their monopoly, I dont see why you see this case to be totally
different. How many IE versions have we seen after Netscape was gone?
In Intel's case, they had to improve because of competition (AMD
lately). I truly beleive that in the absence of competition, we would
have a PIII 800 MHz as the fastest desktop cpu by now! Thats why
competition is necessary. And once its there, laws are there to keep it
fair. Thats all that AMD is asking for.

Pankaj

Yousuf Khan wrote:


Okay then, I'll also tell you how it works with me. I quoted a website
which quoted a lawyer they interviewed with some knowledge about
anti-trust cases. I'm not a lawyer, but the interviewee is. Until
another lawyer with similar background tells me that this first lawyer
is full of it, then I have no reason to disagree with him. Or someone
proves that the website misquoted him.

If you think you've discovered a flaw with his statement, then take it
up with him directly. Or take it up with the website that interviewed him.

Long story short, the interviewee is a lawyer. You are not.

[Struggling to maintain my composure.]

I am not asking you to believe anything that *I* say. I am asking you
to compare the apparently absurd comment you insist that I believe
compared to a statement taken straight out of the public record.

I really don't know how long I can keep this up.

RM

Pankaj wrote:


I am not a lawyer and so I cant comment on the technical details of
monopoly. I do agree with you that the 40% cannot be a clear cut
definition of monopoly. Here is the case wher it cant be applied- in a
two player market, if one has 40%, the other will have 60%. So which
one is a monopoly? How do you prove that a company has a monoploy. Here
is a link. Not a very authoritative, but beleivable.

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html


The actual question here is applicability of Section 1 of the Sherman
Anti-trust act, which applies when a company has been found to have
monopoly power. The document I cited from the Microsoft findings seems
clear. No matter what Yousuf thinks, Intel will contest that Section 1
sanctions are applicable. If and when a court makes a finding that
Intel has monopoly power, then it will be appropriate to say that Intel
has monopoly power.


I am very much with AMD on this one. You do agree that Microsoft has
abused their monopoly, I dont see why you see this case to be totally
different. How many IE versions have we seen after Netscape was gone?
In Intel's case, they had to improve because of competition (AMD
lately). I truly beleive that in the absence of competition, we would
have a PIII 800 MHz as the fastest desktop cpu by now! Thats why
competition is necessary. And once its there, laws are there to keep it
fair. Thats all that AMD is asking for.

AMD will have its day in court (maybe).

RM

And I'm trying to tell you your fight is with the authors of the
article and the people they interviewed. There's no point in taking it
up with me.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:
And I'm trying to tell you your fight is with the
authors of the article and the people they interviewed.
There's no point in taking it up with me.

Then pray tell, why did you post it?

Unless you posted it with a clear critique: "look at what
these idjuts are saying", you are presumed to support it.

In this case, IIRC you posted a quote to support your
arguments. Then you must accept the quote, warts and all.
And rebuttal is entirely appropriate.

Your argument stinks of "appeal to authority": that
credentials or media incorporation somehow make the
information or arguments more credible. This is entirely
anathema to the egalitarian medium of USENET.

-- Robert

The actual question here is applicability of Section 1 of the Sherman
Anti-trust act, which applies when a company has been found to have
monopoly power. The document I cited from the Microsoft findings seems
clear. No matter what Yousuf thinks, Intel will contest that Section 1
sanctions are applicable. If and when a court makes a finding that
Intel has monopoly power, then it will be appropriate to say that Intel
has monopoly power.

Most antitrust cases are tried under section 2. Section 1 doesnt even
talk about monopolization. I am sure Courts will decide if Intel is a
monoploy, we are here to just have a discussion about it, right? Or do
we want to have this discussion after the trial is over!
AMD will have its day in court (maybe).
I hope so. I dont want AMD to make an out of court settlement. Intel
has history of making out of court settlements just for one reason-
They dont want to be declared a monopoly. A company that makes 2
billion dollars a quarter, can pay that amount easily to keep
benefitting from their monopoly. Where are DEC, Intergraph today?

Pankaj

RM

Pankaj wrote:

The actual question here is applicability of Section 1 of the Sherman
Anti-trust act, which applies when a company has been found to have
monopoly power. The document I cited from the Microsoft findings seems
clear. No matter what Yousuf thinks, Intel will contest that Section 1
sanctions are applicable. If and when a court makes a finding that
Intel has monopoly power, then it will be appropriate to say that Intel
has monopoly power.

Most antitrust cases are tried under section 2. Section 1 doesnt even
talk about monopolization. I am sure Courts will decide if Intel is a
monoploy, we are here to just have a discussion about it, right? Or do
we want to have this discussion after the trial is over!

I believe the byplay between Yousuf and me was over whether it was
obvious on the face of it (based on a quote in Tom's Hardware), that
Intel is a monopoly as defined by anti-trust law.

AMD will have its day in court (maybe).

I hope so. I dont want AMD to make an out of court settlement. Intel
has history of making out of court settlements just for one reason-
They dont want to be declared a monopoly. A company that makes 2
billion dollars a quarter, can pay that amount easily to keep
benefitting from their monopoly. Where are DEC, Intergraph today?

Trials are expensive. Once you get in front of a judge, anything can
happen. Getting into the courtroom should be a last resort from
someone who is not grandstanding.

Far from my reading this as a bold move from a self-confident AMD, I
see it as a sign of desperation. How do we turn our expectations as to
what we are worth into reality? Sue.

Consolidation in the semiconductor business is utterly unavoidable. If
Intel does not survive or is very much weakened, that is not
necessarily good for the industry.

As to DEC, how do you spell self-destruct? I don't know about
Intergraph. There are, I suspect, people out there who admire
Microsoft the way that I admire Intel. I have no illusions that Intel
is nice, fair, or even always the best. They get the job done. That's
all.

Everyone here knows that I don't think much of AMD's long-term
prospects. If what people here are dreaming about came to pass: an
Intel much debilitated by lengthy litigation and a ruinous judgment, it
would not be a good thing.

Fairness? Give me a break. Pay attention to what's happening in the
world. There are much bigger things to worry about than whether AMD
executives have their dreams fulfilled.

RM

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
YKhan wrote:
And I'm trying to tell you your fight is with the
authors of the article and the people they interviewed.
There's no point in taking it up with me.

Then pray tell, why did you post it?

Umm, because you asked me to?

Unless you posted it with a clear critique: "look at what
these idjuts are saying", you are presumed to support it.

Did I ever say I didn't support it? As I said previously, I have no
reason to not believe it. If another expert with similar credentials
might disagree and explain why, then I'll revisit this gentleman's
claims.

Your argument stinks of "appeal to authority": that
credentials or media incorporation somehow make the
information or arguments more credible. This is entirely
anathema to the egalitarian medium of USENET.

Don't take it personally, if it comes to an argument about computer
chips or computer architecture between you and Mr. Vogl, I'll take your
word with much higher authority than his. :-)

Yousuf Khan