http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/comment-page-1/#comment-66034 golden age - StartTags.com Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:43:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18272#comment-66034 <p>[...] sepia-toned regurgitations of past generations' honest labor. Of course my generation blows. ...Golden Age for Antitrust? Technology Liberation FrontKeeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology. Golden Age for [...]</p> [...] sepia-toned regurgitations of past generations' honest labor. Of course my generation blows. …Golden Age for Antitrust? Technology Liberation FrontKeeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology. Golden Age for [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/comment-page-1/#comment-65387 laptop battery Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:49:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18272#comment-65387 <p>Hope to be better. Better means more features.</p> Hope to be better. Better means more features.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/comment-page-1/#comment-63406 laptop battery Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:49:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18272#comment-63406 <p>Hope to be better. Better means more features.</p> Hope to be better. Better means more features.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/comment-page-1/#comment-61974 Carme Fri, 15 May 2009 19:37:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18272#comment-61974 <p>There are several problems with your argument, I'll state the biggest one. In a market mostly held by an incumbent company, competition is good because it forces the incumbent to keep innovating and offer value to the customers. The incentives of the small competitors are actually a lot less meaningful, because most consumers get their product from the incumbent. Your analysis focuses solely on the incentives of the small competitors, which are not the important part of the equation. If Intel is allowed to pay retailers and OEMs not to sell AMD machines, there is obviously less incentive for Intel to bring a better product to market compared to when it has to compete solely on merits and value. Whatever incentives this creates for AMD, it cannot possibly compensate for the damage done by skewing Intel's incentives.</p> There are several problems with your argument, I'll state the biggest one. In a market mostly held by an incumbent company, competition is good because it forces the incumbent to keep innovating and offer value to the customers. The incentives of the small competitors are actually a lot less meaningful, because most consumers get their product from the incumbent. Your analysis focuses solely on the incentives of the small competitors, which are not the important part of the equation. If Intel is allowed to pay retailers and OEMs not to sell AMD machines, there is obviously less incentive for Intel to bring a better product to market compared to when it has to compete solely on merits and value. Whatever incentives this creates for AMD, it cannot possibly compensate for the damage done by skewing Intel's incentives.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/comment-page-1/#comment-59363 Carme Fri, 15 May 2009 18:37:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18272#comment-59363 <p>There are several problems with your argument, I'll state the biggest one. In a market mostly held by an incumbent company, competition is good because it forces the incumbent to keep innovating and offer value to the customers. The incentives of the small competitors are actually a lot less meaningful, because most consumers get their product from the incumbent. Your analysis focuses solely on the incentives of the small competitors, which are not the important part of the equation. If Intel is allowed to pay retailers and OEMs not to sell AMD machines, there is obviously less incentive for Intel to bring a better product to market compared to when it has to compete solely on merits and value. Whatever incentives this creates for AMD, it cannot possibly compensate for the damage done by skewing Intel's incentives.</p> There are several problems with your argument, I'll state the biggest one. In a market mostly held by an incumbent company, competition is good because it forces the incumbent to keep innovating and offer value to the customers. The incentives of the small competitors are actually a lot less meaningful, because most consumers get their product from the incumbent. Your analysis focuses solely on the incentives of the small competitors, which are not the important part of the equation. If Intel is allowed to pay retailers and OEMs not to sell AMD machines, there is obviously less incentive for Intel to bring a better product to market compared to when it has to compete solely on merits and value. Whatever incentives this creates for AMD, it cannot possibly compensate for the damage done by skewing Intel's incentives.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/golden-age-for-antitrust/comment-page-1/#comment-59336 Steve R. Thu, 14 May 2009 12:24:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18272#comment-59336 <p>I fully agree with you that <i>"No one wants to see an evil monopoly crush a virtuous rival."</i>. However, your post, as with <a href="http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/" rel="nofollow">Braden Cox's</a> post; leaves me with a credibility void. Did Intel really do anything wrong? <br><br>If Intel did, then the EU did nothing wrong and these denunciations of the EU are unjustified. If Intel didn't, then the EU is guilty of an anti-American witch hunt and these denunciations are justified. So did Intel really engage in deceptive business practices?<br><br>PS: I trust that you don't consider deceptive business practices as acceptable free market conduct.</p> I fully agree with you that “No one wants to see an evil monopoly crush a virtuous rival.”. However, your post, as with Braden Cox's post; leaves me with a credibility void. Did Intel really do anything wrong?

If Intel did, then the EU did nothing wrong and these denunciations of the EU are unjustified. If Intel didn't, then the EU is guilty of an anti-American witch hunt and these denunciations are justified. So did Intel really engage in deceptive business practices?

PS: I trust that you don't consider deceptive business practices as acceptable free market conduct.

]]>