AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > Del Cecchi wrote:
> >
> >
> snip
> >>I gather you think monopoly is good?
> >
> >
> > Neither good nor bad, necessarily. On the whole, monopolies have
> > probably done more to advance what is generally called civilization
> > than to impede it. Whether the advancement of what is generally known
> > as civilization is a good thing might be debated.
> >
>
> >
> >>You probably like central planning as well. Trust me it isn't good.
> >
> >
> > No need to trust you. And, nothing personal, but I wouldn't. The
> > number of wrong opinions about economics that have been uttered in
> > human history surely exceeds the number of humans who have ever lived.
> > In any case, we have empirical evidence that at least some versions of
> > central planning don't work.
>
> Ah, but if you were in charge it would work? IBM in the 80's was a
> giant exercise in central planning. It didn't work either. Why do you
> think that IBM lost the PC market?

I definitely wouldn't make the claim that, if I were in charge it would
work. Examples of successful central planning, like the Interstate
Highway System, are readily at hand, just as examples of spectacular
failures of central planning are readily at hand. Neither warrants a
blanket generalization about central planning.

People tend *not* to advertise the success of monopolies because their
methods are unattractive and because the success of monopolies doesn't
fit in with au courant preconceptions about the way the world works.
Time was, though, when a sovreign (person or state) wanted to begin
something new, the first thing to do was to grant a monopoly.

Questions about how large organizations manage capital investments like
R&D are probably better left to business school classrooms.

> >
> >
> snip
> >>
> >
> > I've tried to make it clear that, on my scale of ethics, the damage
> > done to the public good by Intel doesn't make it into the Enron or
> > Worldcom league. Probably Healthsouth, too, but there I don't know the
> > story well enough. You're free to make your own value judgments. Just
> > don't expect your value judgments to be universally accepted. I don't.
> >
> If only enron and worldcom hadn't been bothered by the government, they
> would still be in business and have done no harm. The harm was caused
> by the fallout of them going under due to the meddling of the government
> exposing the fraudulent accounting. See I can play that game too.
>

If you really believe that, we are in disagreement, but I don't think
you really believe that. Enron and Worldcom damaged many lives.

> >>
> >>Competition is good. Free markets are good. Bureaucracies are bad.
> >>Who are the elite that they should determine what is best for us proles?
> >>
> >
> > Just this very afternoon, I was recounting for myself the number of
> > people now in--what would you call them?--policy roles I had known as a
> > lad--no doubt because, being an overachiever myself, I tended to be
> > around other overachievers. The ones who have made it big tend to be
> > on that Milton Friedmanish end of things. They are definitely the
> > elite. They are definitely making, or trying to make, decisions for
> > others. Marvelous things, elites: they can make anything work for
> > them: bureaucracies, monopolies, free markets, whatever's going.
> > That's why they're elites. You really should break up all those Wall
> > Street Journal editorials by reading, say, a little Nietzsche.
> >
> Still not as bad as those folks who only want to fix all the problems by
> taking from the productive folks (tax the rich, as claude pepper used to
> say) and use it to make themselves feel good.
>

Class warfare is so out of style. Values warfare is in. As to the
"still not as bad" part, we don't agree.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:24:08 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > Del Cecchi wrote:
> >> Robert Myers wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Much of the progress of civilization and been built on the creation of
> >> > monopolies, and competition is not always good. Many of the activities
> >> > that technologists admire and dream about require enormous
> >> > concentrations of power and of wealth, and the ruthless creation of
> >> > monopolies has more often than not been what has allowed those
> >> > concentrations to appear.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think the computer industry would look like if it hadn't
> >> > been for IBM's ruthlessness? Follow comp.arch for a while and try to
> >> > grasp how much of the work was done by IBM when it was a monopoly.
> >> > What IBM didn't do, AT&T Bell Labs did. The insularity that went along
> >> > with IBM's enormous wealth and influence, not the actions of
> >> > regulators, eventually brought the monopoly to an end. AT&T was
> >> > brought down by regulatory activity, and it was not necessarily a good
> >> > thing.
> >>
> >> Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
> >> a monopoly after 1956.
> >
> > Pass my post along to IBM's legal department. I'm not taking back a
> > word. *I* find them to have been a monopoly long after 1956.
>
> Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
> Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".
>

Perhaps you should stick to the sports page. Yousuf all but called me
an idiot for not knowing that Intel already was a monopoly by some
legal standard that I should have known about.

I've reached a point in life where I've realized that, in many ways, I
probably could fairly be assessed to be an idiot, but the way that
Yousuf accused me is not one of them, so I took him on.

It was not an argument about opinions ("I think Intel is/isnot a
monopoly"). It was an argument about facts ("By an objective legal
standard Intel is/isnot a monopoly").

It was, is, and likely ever shall be my opinion that IBM exercised
monopoly power in computers long after 1956. Many in the Justice
Department, which continued to pursue IBM, would apparently have agreed
with me.

I don't think Intel has the kind of monopoly power that IBM enjoyed
when it was defining just about everything in computing that people
would spend the next three decades talking about and reinventing. And
what IBM didn't define, AT&T did.

RM

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:

>
>
> keith wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:24:08 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Del Cecchi wrote:
>> >> Robert Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Much of the progress of civilization and been built on the creation of
>> >> > monopolies, and competition is not always good. Many of the activities
>> >> > that technologists admire and dream about require enormous
>> >> > concentrations of power and of wealth, and the ruthless creation of
>> >> > monopolies has more often than not been what has allowed those
>> >> > concentrations to appear.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think the computer industry would look like if it hadn't
>> >> > been for IBM's ruthlessness? Follow comp.arch for a while and try to
>> >> > grasp how much of the work was done by IBM when it was a monopoly.
>> >> > What IBM didn't do, AT&T Bell Labs did. The insularity that went along
>> >> > with IBM's enormous wealth and influence, not the actions of
>> >> > regulators, eventually brought the monopoly to an end. AT&T was
>> >> > brought down by regulatory activity, and it was not necessarily a good
>> >> > thing.
>> >>
>> >> Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
>> >> a monopoly after 1956.
>> >
>> > Pass my post along to IBM's legal department. I'm not taking back a
>> > word. *I* find them to have been a monopoly long after 1956.
>>
>> Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
>> Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".
>>
>
> Perhaps you should stick to the sports page. Yousuf all but called me
> an idiot for not knowing that Intel already was a monopoly by some
> legal standard that I should have known about.

....and you, sir, are no different. You talk down to *everyone*, even
those who have some knowledge of what's going on. ...the definition of a
pompous ass.

> I've reached a point in life where I've realized that, in many ways, I
> probably could fairly be assessed to be an idiot, but the way that
> Yousuf accused me is not one of them, so I took him on.

Indeed, anyone who thinks differently than to polit-buro allows must be
terminated. ...typical of academia. That *is* your position.

> It was not an argument about opinions ("I think Intel is/isnot a
> monopoly"). It was an argument about facts ("By an objective legal
> standard Intel is/isnot a monopoly").

"Objective" == "not convicted", perhaps. Whether or not Intel (or M$) is
a monopoly isn't the point. Are they using predatory practices to limit
competition is the point. I've seen enough to say that they indeed are.

> It was, is, and likely ever shall be my opinion that IBM exercised
> monopoly power in computers long after 1956. Many in the Justice
> Department, which continued to pursue IBM, would apparently have agreed
> with me.

....and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.

> I don't think Intel has the kind of monopoly power that IBM enjoyed when
> it was defining just about everything in computing that people would
> spend the next three decades talking about and reinventing. And what
> IBM didn't define, AT&T did.

Irrelevant. IBM was under the consent decree to behave in a particular
manner. That lasted until the mid '90s. ...but don't let the facts get
in your way.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:46:36 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> > Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
>> > a monopoly after 1956. I gather you think monopoly is good? You
>> > probably like central planning as well. Trust me it isn't good.
>>
>> IBM wasn't "found" guilty in '56 either. There is a reason it's called
>> the "consent decree".
>
> As far as I'm concerned, IBM was always a monopoly until the early
> 1990's, when it was finally toppled and therefore no longer a monopoly.

Watch that "was always". What does that mean, exactly? In what market?
As I just told the idiot RM (ok, if you won't directly call him that, I
will), IBM was under the consent decree to practice business in a
particular manner. It wasn't a small issue in IBM almost going under the
waves in '93. I've been around a tad longer Yousuf.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > keith wrote:
> >


> >> Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
> >> Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps you should stick to the sports page. Yousuf all but called me
> > an idiot for not knowing that Intel already was a monopoly by some
> > legal standard that I should have known about.
>
> ...and you, sir, are no different. You talk down to *everyone*, even
> those who have some knowledge of what's going on. ...the definition of a
> pompous ass.
>
Yousuf is free to call Intel a monopoly if he cares to. What he can't
do is to tell me that some objective fact about Intel is obvious when
it isn't. The "objective fact" about Intel is something that AMD is
putting out and wants everyone to accept as obvious but that has not
yet been proven and isn't obvious.

> > I've reached a point in life where I've realized that, in many ways, I
> > probably could fairly be assessed to be an idiot, but the way that
> > Yousuf accused me is not one of them, so I took him on.
>
> Indeed, anyone who thinks differently than to polit-buro allows must be
> terminated. ...typical of academia. That *is* your position.
>

Who gives you the right to put words in my mouth? When have I ever
said or even implied such a thing?

And by what subterranean pathways in your mind does your comment have
anything to do with what I said? Yousuf made a claim, and I rebutted
it. What has that got to do with terminating anyone?

> > It was not an argument about opinions ("I think Intel is/isnot a
> > monopoly"). It was an argument about facts ("By an objective legal
> > standard Intel is/isnot a monopoly").
>
> "Objective" == "not convicted", perhaps. Whether or not Intel (or M$) is
> a monopoly isn't the point. Are they using predatory practices to limit
> competition is the point. I've seen enough to say that they indeed are.
>
No. Not proven. Not obvious, and not even related to what Yousuf
thought was the obvious standard. In another piece an AMD spokesman
put it out there that they can only *compete* for 60% of the market:
the exact break point for Section 1 sanctions. That's an AMD claim at
this point. That's part of AMD's publicity campaign: these are the
facts, this is what's happening, this is what any idiot should see, and
*you* are a volunteer in their campaign.

Let the courts figure it out. They'll make a hash of it just like
they've made a hash of every other anti-trust action I've seen during
my lifetime. I think it's hilarious that all the free market
campaigners are cheerleaders for this last bit of nonsense. Have at
it. Just don't spout sports bar big talk at me and expect me to think
you're talking facts.

> > It was, is, and likely ever shall be my opinion that IBM exercised
> > monopoly power in computers long after 1956. Many in the Justice
> > Department, which continued to pursue IBM, would apparently have agreed
> > with me.
>
> ...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.
>

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
disinterested party.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, IBM was always a monopoly until the early
> > 1990's, when it was finally toppled and therefore no longer a monopoly.
>
> Watch that "was always". What does that mean, exactly? In what market?
> As I just told the idiot RM (ok, if you won't directly call him that, I
> will), IBM was under the consent decree to practice business in a
> particular manner. It wasn't a small issue in IBM almost going under the
> waves in '93. I've been around a tad longer Yousuf.

Just based on attitude, not based on any official court cases and
whatnot. IBM acted like an arrogant monopoly pretty much until the
early 90's when it got its come-uppance. I can spot a monopoly based on
its attitude without requiring a court to tell me.

Yousuf khan

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:04:17 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> > As far as I'm concerned, IBM was always a monopoly until the early
>> > 1990's, when it was finally toppled and therefore no longer a monopoly.
>>
>> Watch that "was always". What does that mean, exactly? In what market?
>> As I just told the idiot RM (ok, if you won't directly call him that, I
>> will), IBM was under the consent decree to practice business in a
>> particular manner. It wasn't a small issue in IBM almost going under the
>> waves in '93. I've been around a tad longer Yousuf.
>
> Just based on attitude, not based on any official court cases and
> whatnot. IBM acted like an arrogant monopoly pretty much until the
> early 90's when it got its come-uppance. I can spot a monopoly based on
> its attitude without requiring a court to tell me.

Your bias is showing. The facts don't support your conclusions. The
*fact* is that IBM was "regulated" as a "monopoly" by the '56 consent
decree. Note that having a monopoly isn't illegal, just that once
fact is found (or admitted to) the rules change. The '56 CD was most
responsible for the uearly '90s decline and almost failure, since the
market had moved somewhat form '56 and the old rules still applied. In the
'90s IBM was successful in getting many (now all) of these restrictions
lifted. The wounds still exist though. You're too new to understand what
a burdon the '56 DC was (do you have to sign he BCG's every year?).

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> Your bias is showing. The facts don't support your conclusions. The
> *fact* is that IBM was "regulated" as a "monopoly" by the '56 consent
> decree. Note that having a monopoly isn't illegal, just that once
> fact is found (or admitted to) the rules change. The '56 CD was most
> responsible for the uearly '90s decline and almost failure, since the
> market had moved somewhat form '56 and the old rules still applied. In the
> '90s IBM was successful in getting many (now all) of these restrictions
> lifted. The wounds still exist though. You're too new to understand what
> a burdon the '56 DC was (do you have to sign he BCG's every year?).

Nope, don't have to sign BCG's (don't even know what they are).
However, in the 80's and early 90's, IBM's arrogance was showing.
They're a much more humble company now, of course, which is the way I
like it.

If IBM was a regulated company since the 50's, then it sure looks like
they had quite a bit of leeway within that framework. Although the
memories are fading with the years, I can remember various arrogant
steps taken by IBM since the inception of the PC.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005 04:51:53 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >keith wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
> >> ...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.
> >>
> >
> >Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
> >actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
> >that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
> >don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
> >disinterested party.
>
> That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
> won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
> on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
> has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
> your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
> recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.
>
> In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
> yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
> withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.
>

Get a life, George. Where do you think I found out who Keith's
employer is?

And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
for Intel.

> As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
> while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
> behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
> guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
> to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
> a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
> it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.
>

You, like Yousuf, simply do not know what you're talking about. Either
that, or your desire to hold some particular view of the world
overwhelms your common sense. Intel is never going to bother to sue
you, so it doesn't matter that what you are saying is defamatory and
false, but it is. Intel has agreed to a set of rules for future
behavior. Period.

> As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
> AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
> worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
> Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
> spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
> class action suit based on this.
>

As for your making demands of the type "you can do this or you can do
that," just who the hell do you think you are?

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 20 Jul 2005 04:51:53 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>keith wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>> ...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.
>>
>
>Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
>actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
>that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
>don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
>disinterested party.

That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.

In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.

As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.

As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
class action suit based on this.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:

>
snip
> Works. Why should the government get enriched? Though it looks like the
> JP thing looks more like the IBM '56 consent decree to mee. "I
> promise..." ...and that was devastating enough.
>
>
Unless they treat it like ms consent dealey with the US government and
ignore it.


--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of
> > IBM doesn't actually raise your credibility in this matter?
> > Aside from the fact that decades of corporate newsletters and
> > water-cooler conversations don't necessarily provide useful
> > information, you are not exactly a disinterested party.
>
> An "ad hominem" argument forces others to defend.
>
> Employees for large corporations frequently are it's harshest
> (because most accurate) critics. They see what goes on and are
> insulated from personal gain or loss by the size of the corp.
> So long as they don't actually reveal specifically confidential
> information, the corp has trouble making reprisals, if it is
> even aware!
>

I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument was intended
to impeach the credibility of the speaker with respect to the argument
he was making. It doesn't matter whether Keith (or any other IBM
employee) would be critical of IBM: what matters is the inevitability
that they would regard the myopic view of the world in which they were
immersed as the true, complete, and only view of the world.

The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly everyone
outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly, no matter what memos
circulated inside IBM, long after the 1956 consent decree. The
insistence, here, that IBM was not a monopoly has come from IBM
employees, using an argument based on the legalities to which IBM was
subjected.

Why would someone who *worked* for a corporation be concerned on
whether is was a monopoly or not? Why, based on what rules they had to
follow and what pieces of paper they had to sign, and that's exactly
the view we got here from employees of IBM. Why would the rest of the
world care what rules Keith had to follow or what pieces of paper they
had to sign? The rest of the world cares about how competitive the
market was, and the difference between IBM being dominant and IBM not
being dominant was like night and day... a difference you will _never_
see as an outcome of action against Intel.

As to the "not being disinterested" part, the simple fact is that an
employee of IBM is not a disinterested party with respect to Intel.
IBM has lost jobs and prestige, and IBM employees have lost jobs, job
security, and had things like benefits threatened as a result, and the
success of Intel (and its protege Dell) are a direct cause of those
reversals of fortune. Individual employees of IBM have most definitely
not been insulated from IBM's difficulties, and I can't believe you
think otherwise.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument
> > was intended to impeach the credibility of the speaker with
> > respect to the argument he was making.
>
> The validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility
> of the speaker. Validity depends on facts and logic, and not in
> the least upon who states them.
>
> Now, if you wish to attack facts (as they do in a court of law),
> you are entirely free to do so. Best to attack with other facts.
> Attacking the credibility of a reporter is risky for the attacker:
>
> The reporter knows exactly what happened so the accusations
> are silly. Their usual reaction is "What a [malevolent] idiot".
> Third parties will form their own opinions and again the attacker
> risks credibility. Attackers may also be thought to be revealing
> their own mental state -- what they would do.
>
I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but now I'm
going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:

<RM>

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
disinterested party.

<RM>

The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been: I was there,
so I know. My response is: you were there, so you have a very odd
point of view.

> > what matters is the inevitability that they would regard
> > the myopic view of the world in which they were immersed
> > as the true, complete, and only view of the world.
>
> All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
> The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.
>
What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar names
is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?

> > The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly
> > everyone outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly,
>
> Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
> Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power).

Oh, spare me. If *buyers* experienced IBM as a monopoly, it's because
IBM was a monopoly.

Now, some of this got started because Yousuf wanted to hammer away at a
*legal* definition of monopoly, and I've taken the trouble to explore
what that legal definition is and whether or not it has actually been
shown to be met. There is no need to argue about what legal decisions
were handed down with respect to IBM. The decisions are a matter of
record.

This current part of the argument started when I casually commented
that IBM got a great deal of work done when it was a monopoly. If you
want to state that IBM escaped the clutches of the Justice Department
during that period, you are free to do so, and that has been done.
Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a monopoly, it
was experienced that way by customers, and the Justice Department
continued to pursue IBM until the matter was more or less moot because
the market moved faster than the lawyers.

> What Keith has
> very valuably reported is that IBM did not see itself as a monopoly.

Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee of IBM
sees IBM? That's my whole <expletive deleted> point.

> It saw enormous outside competition.

Just as Intel sees enormous outside competition. Just as the US
perceives itself hopelessly beleaguered.

> Glass half empty. This then
> greatly reduced monopolistic behaviour, at least in pricing terms.

You are actually making a version of the argument I was pursuing early
in this thread: there is *always* price discipline, becuase there is
*always* another option. No one ever *had* to buy IBM mainframes.
Just as with avoiding doing business with Gates & Ballmer, there was a
cost to not doing business with Big Blue. That's always true: there
are always other options, and markets usually beat the lawyers to the
finish line. Hooray for markets. That doesn't mean it's unfair to be
calling IBM a monopoly during that period when computer and IBM were
all but synonymous.

> I think Microsoft (an adjudged monopoly) is in an even more dominant
> position today than IBM ever was.

I agree with that, and that's been part of my point all along. The
anti-trust action against Microsoft was a joke.

> Yet even they are afraid
> internally (Lotus, Netscape, Oracle, Linux, ...)

Exactly so. Who *cares* how paranoid Gates and Ballmer are, except to
laugh at them? Their assessment of reality just isn't useful as a
guide to anything.

>
> > As to the "not being disinterested" part, the simple fact
> > is that an employee of IBM is not a disinterested party
> > with respect to Intel. IBM has lost jobs and prestige, and
> > IBM employees have lost jobs, job security, and had things
> > like benefits threatened as a result, and the success of
> > Intel (and its protege Dell) are a direct cause of those
> > reversals of fortune. Individual employees of IBM have
> > most definitely not been insulated from IBM's difficulties,
> > and I can't believe you think otherwise.
>
> Ah, but individual employees within a large corp do not
> believe they have much power to change their fortunes.
> That makes them bystanders and they become disinterested or
> even jaded to keep their sanity. Dilbert is _not_ fiction.
>
That doesn't mean they don't resent Wintel for taking away the lifetime
job security they thought belonged to them and their co-workers.

>
> Perhaps Intel has cost IBM some jobs (I'm really not sure overall,
> share has fallen in a growing market) but do you think any employee
> is going to risk their personal credibility for the near-zero
> influence they have on their future? Or are you accusing Keith of
> being like "he who must not be named" who was shilling high-latency
> memory from a patent submariner?
>
If I want to accuse somebody of something, I'm capable of doing it
right straight out in unambiguous English, and I most always do. I'm
not accusing Keith of anything I haven't actually said. Keith seems to
think the sensibilities about monopolies he acquired as an IBM employee
are the last word or even a good word on the subject. I don't.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of
> IBM doesn't actually raise your credibility in this matter?
> Aside from the fact that decades of corporate newsletters and
> water-cooler conversations don't necessarily provide useful
> information, you are not exactly a disinterested party.

An "ad hominem" argument forces others to defend.

Employees for large corporations frequently are it's harshest
(because most accurate) critics. They see what goes on and are
insulated from personal gain or loss by the size of the corp.
So long as they don't actually reveal specifically confidential
information, the corp has trouble making reprisals, if it is
even aware!

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 14:26:41 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >> On 20 Jul 2005 04:51:53 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >keith wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
> >> >> ...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
> >> >actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
> >> >that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
> >> >don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
> >> >disinterested party.
> >>
> >> That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
> >> won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
> >> on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
> >> has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
> >> your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
> >> recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.
> >>
> >> In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
> >> yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
> >> withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.
> >>
> >
> >Get a life, George. Where do you think I found out who Keith's
> >employer is?
>
> Not from here

*Where*, then do you think I found out? If I recite chapter and verse,
all tucked away now in the google archive, you'll accuse me again of
violating his privacy. Believe me, it's all there.

> - most of us know where and for which company he works but
> I've never seen it directly spelled out.

Then you missed it, any number of times.

> You did not need to do that.
> Even if it's "known" it's still a cheap shot to throw it out... and in a
> provocative barb. Didn't your mommy teach you anything?
>
You are beyond bizarre. Whatever my mother taught me, my experience of
life has taught me that making comments about mothers is a prelude to
trouble.

> >And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
> >gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
> >any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
> >them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
> >business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
> >allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
> >for Intel.
>
> No, you just own a boat-anchor you're hoping will be recovered from the
> deep. Shilling does not necessarily mean current ownership of stock. For
> all I know you could be prepping to turn around a dump cycle.:-[]
>
You know nothing, George. You (the one who is accusing me of low
blows) are the one who is making unfounded accusations. I'm not even
sure why I'm responding to you.

> >> As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
> >> while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
> >> behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
> >> guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
> >> to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
> >> a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
> >> it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.
> >>
> >
> >You, like Yousuf, simply do not know what you're talking about. Either
> >that, or your desire to hold some particular view of the world
> >overwhelms your common sense. Intel is never going to bother to sue
> >you, so it doesn't matter that what you are saying is defamatory and
> >false, but it is. Intel has agreed to a set of rules for future
> >behavior. Period.
>
> How can it be defamatory when it's true and spelled out in legal documents
> which anybody can read - WISE UP!
>
Here is the document with the recommendations:

http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/pressreleases/2005/march/050308intel.pdf

The "facts-findings" are allegations, just as you would see in a
complaint to be heard at a hearing or trial. There has been no hearing
or trial, and the allegations will have to be defended by whoever
wishes to pursue them: AMD, in this case.

If a document summarizing the final regulatory action has been made
public, I can't find it.

At this point, you, Yousuf, AMD, or anyone else would be completely
safe in saying that the Japan FTC alleges that... That would be
exactly the same as saying that a prosecutor alleges that..., and it is
not the same (in US law, at least) as a fact being presumptively true
(Intel is guilty).

> >> As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
> >> AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
> >> worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
> >> Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
> >> spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
> >> class action suit based on this.
> >>
> >
> >As for your making demands of the type "you can do this or you can do
> >that," just who the hell do you think you are?
>
> There are only two choices: either you believe the AMD accusations as
> stated or you don't.
>
What I don't believe are your misinterpretations of Japan FTC's
actions. AMD wants to pursue them, fine, let AMD pursue them. I'm not
the judge or the jury and neither are you.

Your comment about racketeering reminds me of the first time RICO was
used against McDonnell Douglas over bribes to foreign government
officials. M-D had a terrible reputation as an employer, and I never
much cared for the airplanes: I din't like M-D. But neither did I
think it particularly appropriate to have James McDonnell humiliated in
that way. Call me whatever you like. I didn't own any M-D stock or
have a DC-3 in my backyard. I just didn't like it, and I'm not
thrilled about what's happening with Intel. And I don't like your
attitude.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 21 Jul 2005 14:26:41 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2005 04:51:53 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >keith wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>> >> ...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
>> >actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
>> >that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
>> >don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
>> >disinterested party.
>>
>> That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
>> won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
>> on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
>> has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
>> your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
>> recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.
>>
>> In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
>> yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
>> withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.
>>
>
>Get a life, George. Where do you think I found out who Keith's
>employer is?

Not from here - most of us know where and for which company he works but
I've never seen it directly spelled out. You did not need to do that.
Even if it's "known" it's still a cheap shot to throw it out... and in a
provocative barb. Didn't your mommy teach you anything?

>And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
>gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
>any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
>them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
>business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
>allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
>for Intel.

No, you just own a boat-anchor you're hoping will be recovered from the
deep. Shilling does not necessarily mean current ownership of stock. For
all I know you could be prepping to turn around a dump cycle.:-[]

>> As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
>> while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
>> behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
>> guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
>> to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
>> a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
>> it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.
>>
>
>You, like Yousuf, simply do not know what you're talking about. Either
>that, or your desire to hold some particular view of the world
>overwhelms your common sense. Intel is never going to bother to sue
>you, so it doesn't matter that what you are saying is defamatory and
>false, but it is. Intel has agreed to a set of rules for future
>behavior. Period.

How can it be defamatory when it's true and spelled out in legal documents
which anybody can read - WISE UP!

>> As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
>> AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
>> worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
>> Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
>> spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
>> class action suit based on this.
>>
>
>As for your making demands of the type "you can do this or you can do
>that," just who the hell do you think you are?

There are only two choices: either you believe the AMD accusations as
stated or you don't.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument
> was intended to impeach the credibility of the speaker with
> respect to the argument he was making.

The validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility
of the speaker. Validity depends on facts and logic, and not in
the least upon who states them.

Now, if you wish to attack facts (as they do in a court of law),
you are entirely free to do so. Best to attack with other facts.
Attacking the credibility of a reporter is risky for the attacker:

The reporter knows exactly what happened so the accusations
are silly. Their usual reaction is "What a [malevolent] idiot".
Third parties will form their own opinions and again the attacker
risks credibility. Attackers may also be thought to be revealing
their own mental state -- what they would do.

> what matters is the inevitability that they would regard
> the myopic view of the world in which they were immersed
> as the true, complete, and only view of the world.

All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.

> The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly
> everyone outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly,

Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power). What Keith has
very valuably reported is that IBM did not see itself as a monopoly.
It saw enormous outside competition. Glass half empty. This then
greatly reduced monopolistic behaviour, at least in pricing terms.
I think Microsoft (an adjudged monopoly) is in an even more dominant
position today than IBM ever was. Yet even they are afraid
internally (Lotus, Netscape, Oracle, Linux, ...)

> As to the "not being disinterested" part, the simple fact
> is that an employee of IBM is not a disinterested party
> with respect to Intel. IBM has lost jobs and prestige, and
> IBM employees have lost jobs, job security, and had things
> like benefits threatened as a result, and the success of
> Intel (and its protege Dell) are a direct cause of those
> reversals of fortune. Individual employees of IBM have
> most definitely not been insulated from IBM's difficulties,
> and I can't believe you think otherwise.

Ah, but individual employees within a large corp do not
believe they have much power to change their fortunes.
That makes them bystanders and they become disinterested or
even jaded to keep their sanity. Dilbert is _not_ fiction.


Perhaps Intel has cost IBM some jobs (I'm really not sure overall,
share has fallen in a growing market) but do you think any employee
is going to risk their personal credibility for the near-zero
influence they have on their future? Or are you accusing Keith of
being like "he who must not be named" who was shilling high-latency
memory from a patent submariner?

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
>>Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument
>>>was intended to impeach the credibility of the speaker with
>>>respect to the argument he was making.
>>
>>The validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility
>>of the speaker. Validity depends on facts and logic, and not in
>>the least upon who states them.
>>
>>Now, if you wish to attack facts (as they do in a court of law),
>>you are entirely free to do so. Best to attack with other facts.
>>Attacking the credibility of a reporter is risky for the attacker:
>>
>>The reporter knows exactly what happened so the accusations
>>are silly. Their usual reaction is "What a [malevolent] idiot".
>>Third parties will form their own opinions and again the attacker
>>risks credibility. Attackers may also be thought to be revealing
>>their own mental state -- what they would do.
>>
>
> I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but now I'm
> going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:
>
> <RM>
>
> Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
> actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
> that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
> don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
> disinterested party.
>
> <RM>
>
> The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been: I was there,
> so I know. My response is: you were there, so you have a very odd
> point of view.
>
>
>>>what matters is the inevitability that they would regard
>>>the myopic view of the world in which they were immersed
>>>as the true, complete, and only view of the world.
>>
>>All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
>>The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.
>>
>
> What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar names
> is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?
>
>
>>>The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly
>>>everyone outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly,
>>
>>Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
>>Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power).
>
>
> Oh, spare me. If *buyers* experienced IBM as a monopoly, it's because
> IBM was a monopoly.

That's funny. The US Government tried for 20 years to prove this in
court and couldn't. They got tripped up by the definition of relevant
market. The government wanted to make it the market for 370 compatible
mainframes. The judge didn't agree.

>
> Now, some of this got started because Yousuf wanted to hammer away at a
> *legal* definition of monopoly, and I've taken the trouble to explore
> what that legal definition is and whether or not it has actually been
> shown to be met. There is no need to argue about what legal decisions
> were handed down with respect to IBM. The decisions are a matter of
> record.
>
> This current part of the argument started when I casually commented
> that IBM got a great deal of work done when it was a monopoly. If you
> want to state that IBM escaped the clutches of the Justice Department
> during that period, you are free to do so, and that has been done.
> Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a monopoly, it
> was experienced that way by customers, and the Justice Department
> continued to pursue IBM until the matter was more or less moot because
> the market moved faster than the lawyers.

What pricing power? Ever hear about the value of an amdahl coffee cup?
The government was unable to prove any of this stuff. We are
supposed to take it as self evident based on your assertion?
>
>
>>What Keith has
>>very valuably reported is that IBM did not see itself as a monopoly.
>
>
> Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee of IBM
> sees IBM? That's my whole <expletive deleted> point.
>
>
>>It saw enormous outside competition.
>
>
> Just as Intel sees enormous outside competition. Just as the US
> perceives itself hopelessly beleaguered.

Intel sees enormous outside competition? You have evidence for this?
It sees fields it does not dominate, that what you mean?

The US doesn't see itself as "hopelessly beleagured, in my opinion. It
does see itself, justifiably, as under attack. You do remember the WTC,
right?
nip
>
s


--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
snip
>>That doesn't mean they don't resent Wintel for taking away
>>the lifetime job security they thought belonged to them and
>>their co-workers.
>
>
> They might well. Who knows? But pretty much everyone else has
> lost lifetime employment as well, so it's not sure who took it.
>
>
> -- Robert
>
They blame a lot of folks but I never heard anyone blame Intel. John
Akers and his crew are my personal choice. Ask some oldtimers about
AMSROUND FORUM on IBMPC.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 12:32:14 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 21 Jul 2005 14:26:41 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >George Macdonald wrote:
>> >> On 20 Jul 2005 04:51:53 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >keith wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:25:09 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>> >> >> ...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
>> >> >actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
>> >> >that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
>> >> >don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
>> >> >disinterested party.
>> >>
>> >> That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
>> >> won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
>> >> on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
>> >> has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
>> >> your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
>> >> recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.
>> >>
>> >> In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
>> >> yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
>> >> withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Get a life, George. Where do you think I found out who Keith's
>> >employer is?
>>
>> Not from here
>
>*Where*, then do you think I found out? If I recite chapter and verse,
>all tucked away now in the google archive, you'll accuse me again of
>violating his privacy. Believe me, it's all there.

Any excuse to wriggle out of a fact?

>> - most of us know where and for which company he works but
>> I've never seen it directly spelled out.
>
>Then you missed it, any number of times.

Certainly Keith does not advertize it and as long as I've been here, has
tried to be discreet on the subject. ISTR that someone else may have let
it slip a coupla times; that does not endorse you adding it to your arsenal
and blurting it out.

>> You did not need to do that.
>> Even if it's "known" it's still a cheap shot to throw it out... and in a
>> provocative barb. Didn't your mommy teach you anything?
>>
>You are beyond bizarre. Whatever my mother taught me, my experience of
>life has taught me that making comments about mothers is a prelude to
>trouble.

Here's how it works: if you want to use someone's place of employment
against them, you'd better be ready to reveal some of your own details,
otherwise, you're just another cheap cowardly pretender. You don't even
appreciate what "bizarre" means!

>> >And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
>> >gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
>> >any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
>> >them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
>> >business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
>> >allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
>> >for Intel.
>>
>> No, you just own a boat-anchor you're hoping will be recovered from the
>> deep. Shilling does not necessarily mean current ownership of stock. For
>> all I know you could be prepping to turn around a dump cycle.:-[]
>>
>You know nothing, George.

Learn that one at the err, Debating Society did you?:-[]

> You (the one who is accusing me of low
>blows) are the one who is making unfounded accusations. I'm not even
>sure why I'm responding to you.

You're responding because you cannot resist some fundamental urge to defend
the reputation of suspected scoundrels, who have taken no action to defend
or deflect the charges. Your behavior here stinks of shilling - stock
ownership or not.

>> >> As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
>> >> while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
>> >> behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
>> >> guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
>> >> to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
>> >> a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
>> >> it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You, like Yousuf, simply do not know what you're talking about. Either
>> >that, or your desire to hold some particular view of the world
>> >overwhelms your common sense. Intel is never going to bother to sue
>> >you, so it doesn't matter that what you are saying is defamatory and
>> >false, but it is. Intel has agreed to a set of rules for future
>> >behavior. Period.
>>
>> How can it be defamatory when it's true and spelled out in legal documents
>> which anybody can read - WISE UP!
>>
>Here is the document with the recommendations:

There are other documents which you apparently haven't read... the AMD
complaint for one, which contains vivid descriptions of the rackets Intel
indulged in in Japan.

>http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/pressreleases/2005/march/050308intel.pdf
>
>The "facts-findings" are allegations, just as you would see in a
>complaint to be heard at a hearing or trial. There has been no hearing
>or trial, and the allegations will have to be defended by whoever
>wishes to pursue them: AMD, in this case.

There was no hearing or summary phase because Intel tacitly confessed by
accepting the recommended changes to policies. By not proceeding further,
the JPFTC opened the door for the injured party to collect the damages.

>If a document summarizing the final regulatory action has been made
>public, I can't find it.
>
>At this point, you, Yousuf, AMD, or anyone else would be completely
>safe in saying that the Japan FTC alleges that... That would be
>exactly the same as saying that a prosecutor alleges that..., and it is
>not the same (in US law, at least) as a fact being presumptively true
>(Intel is guilty).

U.S. law has nothing to do with this, nor U.S. legal normalcy of
proceedings. From my POV, basically Intel took something similar to the
"no contest" option equivalent in U.S. law.

>> >> As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
>> >> AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
>> >> worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
>> >> Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
>> >> spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
>> >> class action suit based on this.
>> >>
>> >
>> >As for your making demands of the type "you can do this or you can do
>> >that," just who the hell do you think you are?
>>
>> There are only two choices: either you believe the AMD accusations as
>> stated or you don't.
>>
>What I don't believe are your misinterpretations of Japan FTC's
>actions. AMD wants to pursue them, fine, let AMD pursue them. I'm not
>the judge or the jury and neither are you.

Nice deflection but, once again, caught "in the slips".:-[] You know
nothing about JP law but are able to determine that I have
"misinterptretations" of it.Ô_õ

Nobody here is pretending to be the judge and jury - you OTOH seem to be
intent on disrupting any discussion of issues with irrational,
ill-informed, opinionated chafe.

>Your comment about racketeering reminds me of the first time RICO was
>used against McDonnell Douglas over bribes to foreign government
>officials. M-D had a terrible reputation as an employer, and I never
>much cared for the airplanes: I din't like M-D. But neither did I
>think it particularly appropriate to have James McDonnell humiliated in
>that way. Call me whatever you like. I didn't own any M-D stock or
>have a DC-3 in my backyard. I just didn't like it, and I'm not
>thrilled about what's happening with Intel. And I don't like your
>attitude.

Ditto on your attitude. What's new?

What you consider "appropriate" for M-D, Intel or anybody else and whether
you "like it" has little bearing here. IMO the racketeering "shoe" fits.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

>
> You're responding because you cannot resist some fundamental urge to defend
> the reputation of suspected scoundrels, who have taken no action to defend
> or deflect the charges.
>

Why should Intel give AMD the publicity it wants by trying the case in
the press?

I don't feel any need to defend the executives of Enron or Woldcom. I
think that both SCO and its laywer are scoundrels. I don't have any
urge to defend them. I'm prepared to learn that I was wrong about SCO.
Maybe they _do_ have a case, and we just haven't seen it yet, but I
don't think so.

The airplane business, to get back to McDonnell Dougles, is a brutal
business. I'd be simply amazed if bribery in the sale of airplanes has
stopped. Somehow or other, somebody is making bribes in certain
situations, or somebody else is getting the sale. It doesn't matter
whether I like it or not or whether I think it's right or wrong or not.
If the US catches people in the act and brings them to justice under
US law, it also doesn't matter whether I like it or not or whether I
think it's right or not. But I don't have to like it, and it doesn't
have anything to do with any special fondness for some corporation or
other. I tend to want to be as tolerant as possible when people are
forced into situations like that (make a bribe or don't make a sale,
when you know that _someone_ is going to make a bribe, so you lose
business to a competitor, and, unlike the mafia, you are selling a
respectable product).

There are lots of players in the business of selling things right now
that I don't much care for: Wal-Mart and Dell, for example. As much as
I dislike Dell, they have successfully pushed the commodity model to
the palce where everyone expected it to go. Lots of people could have
done it, but they actually did it, and lots and lots of computers are
being sold at very low prices. Capitalism and free markets at work.

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.

Where does the truth lie? You think you know. Someone inside Intel
marketing looks at the number of units a vendor is selling and says,
"We want all those sales and more." What's wrong with that? If the
intent is simply to drive AMD out of business, it's clearly illegal.
You think such distinctions are easy to make. I don't.

It's as difficult to make regulated markets work as it is to make
central planning work. The rules, very clearly, are being made up as
we go along. The only really free market is just that: you let people
go out there and do whatever they have to do, short of violence, theft,
and fraud, and may the better competitor win. That this mid-world of
self-righteous losers in the competition would be the heroes of
proponents of free markets is a puzzle to me.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2005 05:51:21 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You're responding because you cannot resist some fundamental urge to defend
> >> the reputation of suspected scoundrels, who have taken no action to defend
> >> or deflect the charges.
> >>
> >
> >Why should Intel give AMD the publicity it wants by trying the case in
> >the press?
>
> Well what we have so far are just the initial rumblings of the err,
> approaching storm. The "publicity" is coming, at Intel's preference or not
> - the point will be reached where silence on specific issues is
> self-incriminating.
>
No need to speculate about it here. My google news-o-meter keeps
telling me that comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is a real hot spot for
interest in this case, but if it starts showing up in ways that matter,
it won't be hard to tell.

> >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.

> >Where does the truth lie? You think you know. Someone inside Intel
> >marketing looks at the number of units a vendor is selling and says,
> >"We want all those sales and more." What's wrong with that? If the
> >intent is simply to drive AMD out of business, it's clearly illegal.
> >You think such distinctions are easy to make. I don't.
>
> No, I don't think I "know" any more than you do. All I do say is that AMD
> appears to have a strong case... pointless to argue on that -- clearly
> you're not going to sway my opinion nor me yours -- but you do.<shrug>
>

I feel as if I had been forced to continue pursuing an argument that
isn't all that interesting to me because you keep implying that I have
some kind of dark motive or that I am somehow so perversely loyal to
Intel that I can't see that I am defending a bad position.

As I've pursued the argument, though, some things about the argument
have emerged that really do interest me: "competition" as opposed to
"monopolies" isn't an obvious win for "competition," "competition"
doesn't necessarily always benefit consumers, regulation to create a
"free" market necessarily creates a market that isn't free, especially
when the rules are ad hoc and ex post facto.

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.

Beyond that, I believe that you are incorrectly interpreting what has
happened in Japan, but I've put all my arguments forward and I don't
think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to
consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion
about what's happened so far. Don't hold your breath waiting for a
summary judgment.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 24 Jul 2005 05:51:21 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> You're responding because you cannot resist some fundamental urge to defend
>> the reputation of suspected scoundrels, who have taken no action to defend
>> or deflect the charges.
>>
>
>Why should Intel give AMD the publicity it wants by trying the case in
>the press?

Well what we have so far are just the initial rumblings of the err,
approaching storm. The "publicity" is coming, at Intel's preference or not
- the point will be reached where silence on specific issues is
self-incriminating.

>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.

>Where does the truth lie? You think you know. Someone inside Intel
>marketing looks at the number of units a vendor is selling and says,
>"We want all those sales and more." What's wrong with that? If the
>intent is simply to drive AMD out of business, it's clearly illegal.
>You think such distinctions are easy to make. I don't.

No, I don't think I "know" any more than you do. All I do say is that AMD
appears to have a strong case... pointless to argue on that -- clearly
you're not going to sway my opinion nor me yours -- but you do.<shrug>

>It's as difficult to make regulated markets work as it is to make
>central planning work. The rules, very clearly, are being made up as
>we go along. The only really free market is just that: you let people
>go out there and do whatever they have to do, short of violence, theft,
>and fraud, and may the better competitor win. That this mid-world of
>self-righteous losers in the competition would be the heroes of
>proponents of free markets is a puzzle to me.

Nobody needs to be self-righteous - it is redundant when faced with
rascals. Payola is not illegal - people just shun those who indulge in it
when they learn the truth. When that Payola includes an order to "cease &
desist" from competitive offerings, it amounts to a great ad for the
targeted competitor... an admission of fear of that competing product's
excellence. Intel can't win on the PR side of this.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122303528.983095.185500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> <large snip>
>
> > ...I don't
> > think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to
> > consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion
> > about what's happened so far.
>
> That sounds an awful lot like "everybody's out of step but me",

And what is the significance of a poll of a self-selected group? If it
were up to csiphc regulars, there would be no need for AMD to sue
Intel. As the sales numbers show, csiphc isn't representative of much
of anything, except its own obsessions.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> >
> >>Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>

> >
> >>>The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly
> >>>everyone outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly,
> >>
> >>Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
> >>Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power).
> >
> >
> > Oh, spare me. If *buyers* experienced IBM as a monopoly, it's because
> > IBM was a monopoly.
>
> That's funny. The US Government tried for 20 years to prove this in
> court and couldn't. They got tripped up by the definition of relevant
> market. The government wanted to make it the market for 370 compatible
> mainframes. The judge didn't agree.
>

You keep coming back to what the JD did or did not manage to prove in
court. My whole point is that the history of these anti-trust actions
as I know them has been an exercise in arbitrariness and near futility.

I'll happily stipulate that IBM always had competition, in the same
sense that I keep repeating that there is always competition.

IBM had a market dominance in mainframe computing for over two decades.
Every sizeable organization that I was involved with in that period
had one, if only to print W-2 forms and to do whatever else it is the
beancounters do. The change from when IBM had that market dominance to
when it didn't was obvious from every conceivable perspective: manager,
worker-bee, investor, customer, busybody in a bar. If you don't want
to characterize the pricing power that IBM had during that period as
the same pricing power that a monopoly would have, then don't, but I
do.

> >
> > Now, some of this got started because Yousuf wanted to hammer away at a
> > *legal* definition of monopoly, and I've taken the trouble to explore
> > what that legal definition is and whether or not it has actually been
> > shown to be met. There is no need to argue about what legal decisions
> > were handed down with respect to IBM. The decisions are a matter of
> > record.
> >
> > This current part of the argument started when I casually commented
> > that IBM got a great deal of work done when it was a monopoly. If you
> > want to state that IBM escaped the clutches of the Justice Department
> > during that period, you are free to do so, and that has been done.
> > Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a monopoly, it
> > was experienced that way by customers, and the Justice Department
> > continued to pursue IBM until the matter was more or less moot because
> > the market moved faster than the lawyers.
>
> What pricing power? Ever hear about the value of an amdahl coffee cup?
> The government was unable to prove any of this stuff. We are
> supposed to take it as self evident based on your assertion?

You don't have to take my word for anything. You're hung up on what
the Justice Department could and could not prove. As to my saying
anything defamatory about IBM (it was a monopoly), I'll happily
stipulate that the JD never managed to nail IBM after 1956. What I'm
stating would fall into what I'm confident my lawyer would tell me is
opinion. Your opinion is apparently different from mine.

> >
> >
> >>What Keith has
> >>very valuably reported is that IBM did not see itself as a monopoly.
> >
> >
> > Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee of IBM
> > sees IBM? That's my whole <expletive deleted> point.
> >
> >
> >>It saw enormous outside competition.
> >
> >
> > Just as Intel sees enormous outside competition. Just as the US
> > perceives itself hopelessly beleaguered.
>
> Intel sees enormous outside competition? You have evidence for this?
> It sees fields it does not dominate, that what you mean?
>
If you were responsible for maintaining the gross margin numbers at
Intel, I suspect you would see the outside competition as "enormous."

> The US doesn't see itself as "hopelessly beleagured, in my opinion. It
> does see itself, justifiably, as under attack. You do remember the WTC,
> right?

Oh, "hopelessly beleaguered" was rhetorical overkill. I don't know
what I should have said, instead.

RM