Well, Intel WOULD be preventing AMD from competing if they say, hijacked their trucks, or threatened AMD employees directly. As it is, they're convincing vendors NOT to carry AMD products. And, they apparently offer products that offer a lot of value to the vendors, so vendors are choosing to no carry AMD products apparently (I've seen no sign of this from my end as a consumer... I can get AMD stuff anywhere). I have vendors every day trying to convince me to carry their product instead of somebody else's. Intel simply has a lot to offer, so they get to use that weight accordingly. That's what happens when you're successful. I take choice away from customers, too, whenever I decide not to carry a product because I don't like, say, the terms, the pricing, or even the sales person. Does that make ME a bad person? No. I'm yet another vendor that chooses to carry or not to carry various products based on all sorts of criteria. Some of those criteria are financial, some aren't. I fail to see the difference.
Jesus Christ, I'm not questioning WHAT THE RULES ARE. I'm debating the VALIDITY OF THE RULES. Bug fucking difference. Hell, even the definition of a "monopoly" is fucked. In my small town, I can go to 3 places and buy AMD chips and/or computers with AMD chips in them. How is that a "monopoly"?
I know this is REAL. What Intel is doing is simply playing hardball. That's totally acceptable in every other way, apparently, except in this way. What's immoral is a large company, instead of competing on their own like everybody else has to do, wastes our tax money whining to the US gov't about a business issue. If most people think that it's perfectly fine for a company like AMD, Netscape, Sun, etc. to pursue legal action when they can't compete, then most people have a fucked up morality that I will never understand.
This law didn't have anything to do with the price of Windows. Windows costs what it does because if it was significantly more expensive, MS would lose business to Apple or one of the Linuxes.
The telephone company only got to where they were because the US government *gave* them all of the telephone infrastructure.
I started and own a successful small business that is successfully competing against, and beating the big guys. I probably know more about real business than 99% of the people that post here, thanks. The fact is that Intel is playing hardball, yes. The fact that Slashdotters don't realize is that this is how business works. EVERYBODY plays this hard. And yes, they are squaling because they're getting their asses kicked. Why do we have laws about how businesses can compete with each other? Why shouldn't I sue my competitors because their prices are lower than mine? They're playing pretty hard with me, I can tell you.
I'm not debating the legality of it. Clearly it's illegal. What I AM asking is why do so many Slashdotters approve of this law? It seems like everyone has a raging hard-on for this law for some bizarre reason. I happen top think that the DMCA makes *much* more sense than this law does for example, but Slashdotters hate, and ignore the DMCA. There are lots and lots and lots of laws on the books that are immoral and wrong. I happen to think that this is one of them. Why such strong support for such a ridiculous law?
If customers want a product but have trouble finding people to provide it, there is something else happening which is screwing up the natural principles of supply-and-demand.
I disagree. That happens on a daily basis. Case in point... there's a product that I used to buy weekly here in town. Wal-Mart put them out of business, and now I can't find this product because nobody else sells it. That's natural.
Another example... in my store, there are lots and lots of products that I don't carry because 1. the margin is too low 2. the margin on a competing product is better 3. the vendor is giving me an incentive to carry that product. That's not unnatural. Every vendor has the right to decide if say, carrying AMD chips is worth harming their relationship with Intel. That's their choice. Hell, I about 100 products that I would like to sell online, but I cannot because the manufacturer has said that if I do, they will stop selling to me altogether. Now, this pisses me off, but I can still decide to either carry their products on their terms or not. Again, that's standard. It may not be *friendly*, but in no way should it be illegal. Let the market sort it out. If AMD offers a better value, or better service, or better terms, or whatever, then vendors may very well choose to sell AMD only and tell Intel to fuck off. There's nothing saying that they can't. This is a matter of AMD not offering enough to their vendors to make it worth telling Intel to fuck off. So instead of either improving or going away, they waste our tax dollars askign the government for artifical help.
2. I understand the allegations. I'm not saying that what they're doing is legal or illegal. What I'm saying is that the law, itself, is bullshit. You know, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. Slavery was legal in this country for a long time. Was that a good thing because it was legal? Marijuana is classified as an illegal, dangerous drug by the gov't? Does that make it true?
First off, how is what Intel doing any different than what Wal-Mart does on a daily basis? Or Starbucks, or any other company. Any time one company forces another out of business, or simply undercuts price, they're strongarming the competition. I fail to see how this is any different.
If AMD has no proof, why would they be suing in the first place?
Proof of what? Who cares if they have "proof"? My point is that the law is total and utter bullshit. Somebody may also have "proof" that a gay couple is married, which is illegal. That in no way makes those laws any more right or valid.
Ok, but I still don't see the difference between giving vendors incentives *not* to carry a competing product and say, putting that other company out of business in other ways, altogether. Competitors regularly drive each other out of business completely. That's considered good and natural. That's how we improve efficiencies. I don't see how what they do limits consumer choice any more than, say, Wal-Mart coming into a down, undercutting everybody, and driving all competing retail out of business. If anything, that's *much* more limiting to consumer choice, but that's accepted as normal and OK.
Second is if its OK for Intel to use anti-competitive behaviour why not MS? Neither have 100% market share. What percent market share does it start being wrong to use anti-competitive tactics in your mind?
I think MS was in the right and the US gov't was wrong. If anything is arbitary, it's this law, that all Slashdotters seem to be frothing at the mouth in favor of, that says "you can compete this way, but not this way". That's bullshit. As a business owner, I say that that is bullshit. It's completely arbitary, and it boils down to one company saying "It's not fair", and expecting the gov't to help them out.
Actually, that strikes me as average business tactics, too. I have vendors that'll give me an incentive to highlight their products, but only if I don't put a competitor's on the same shelf. Happens every day. I don't see the problem.
That's great. The thing is that I don't see "monopolistic practices" as bad. It's a bad law.
What I'm trying to figure out is when the official Slashdot culture swung to support wholeheartedly the US Gov't and the Attorney General? Slashdotters, I thought, were anti-arbitrary laws, and this kind of big business monopoly stuff is about as arbitrary and forced as one can get.
I don't buy that "predatory" bullshit. It's simply a way of competing. I own a business and my vendors do it all of the time. Totally normal. What's underhanded is a company going whining to the gov't to give them a competitive advantage.
I'm in no way kidding. I see your point, but at the same time, this is how things are changed. People with money/buying power/etc. are the ones who get to effect change. Now that I own a *real* small business, with some purchasing power, I can make a difference. It may not be big, but it does make a difference. For example, there are suppliers out there that make good products, but we won't carry them because of the way the company does business. I explain that to customers, and they're usually fine with it. Either way, I'm finally getting to make a difference. And if I don't like AMD's business practices, then I won't buy any products with AMD chips in them. Now, granted, I won't pursue this policy to the point where our business would be irreparably damaged, but I'll do what I can. It's a matter of principle (and morality).
That settles it. No more business from myself or my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic. I think that this is disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost our business.
Absolutely. Cripple those fuckers. Hell, foget crippling their product... why not just steal their business from them entirely? Just take their assets, their profits, etc. Who the HELL do they think they are making a successful company, anyway? Bastards. The gov't should force EVERYBODY to learn the intricacies of.config files. The gov't should FORCE everybody to learn how to code in C.
Times are hard for everybody. Regardless of what The Idiot in the White House says, the economy is shit. Nobody is able to live at the same standard of living that they've grown used to, and it's just going to continue to get worse. Still, I'd contend that tradespeople are the most unreplaceable, and thus most likely to stay gainfully employed in our current economy. Again, eventually, everybody needs a plumber... nobody needs another marketing person or another IT administrator.
You're right... that *does* happen in the long term. But you missed the heart of the problem: too many goddamned people, not enough resources. Corporations do the best that they can, just like individuals do, only on a much larger scale.
Really? So then what are people going to do when their toilet stops working? Shit on the floor?
People with trades will always be in demand. In fact, I'd throw "auto mechanic" into that list too. Most people can't live without working plumbing, electricity, and automobiles. People most definitely can live without yet another web site, CRM application, etc.
"good guys" and "bad guys" only exist in the movies. You certainly can't categorize giant multinational corporations as "good guys" or "bad guys". That just doesn't make any sense.
I don't like to see rising unemployment in the tech sector, either, but unionizing and legislating are not the answers. Innovation, entrepreneurship, and low tax overhead will help. We also have to face up to the fact that there are industrious and hard working people out there who will do our job on the cheap. We in the West need to wake up, start thinking more innovatively, and compete with our best tools: our creativity, education, and tremendous freedom to explore new business opportunities.
All true, but it's waaaaay too late to fix this. If anything, IT industry workers as a whole needed to realize this 10 years ago. Today, IT people still think of themselves as deserving of an inordinately large paycheck. And what's interesting is that IT people that I know and that I have talked to all seem to keep this mentality even while they're unemployed. I got my wake up call years ago, and left the IT industry for good, because I know that I'm not willing to sit in a fucking cubicle and commute with the lemmings every day for less than $xx an hour.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Intel WOULD be preventing AMD from competing if they say, hijacked their trucks, or threatened AMD employees directly. As it is, they're convincing vendors NOT to carry AMD products. And, they apparently offer products that offer a lot of value to the vendors, so vendors are choosing to no carry AMD products apparently (I've seen no sign of this from my end as a consumer... I can get AMD stuff anywhere). I have vendors every day trying to convince me to carry their product instead of somebody else's. Intel simply has a lot to offer, so they get to use that weight accordingly. That's what happens when you're successful. I take choice away from customers, too, whenever I decide not to carry a product because I don't like, say, the terms, the pricing, or even the sales person. Does that make ME a bad person? No. I'm yet another vendor that chooses to carry or not to carry various products based on all sorts of criteria. Some of those criteria are financial, some aren't. I fail to see the difference.
Jesus Christ, I'm not questioning WHAT THE RULES ARE. I'm debating the VALIDITY OF THE RULES. Bug fucking difference. Hell, even the definition of a "monopoly" is fucked. In my small town, I can go to 3 places and buy AMD chips and/or computers with AMD chips in them. How is that a "monopoly"?
I know this is REAL. What Intel is doing is simply playing hardball. That's totally acceptable in every other way, apparently, except in this way. What's immoral is a large company, instead of competing on their own like everybody else has to do, wastes our tax money whining to the US gov't about a business issue. If most people think that it's perfectly fine for a company like AMD, Netscape, Sun, etc. to pursue legal action when they can't compete, then most people have a fucked up morality that I will never understand.
This law didn't have anything to do with the price of Windows. Windows costs what it does because if it was significantly more expensive, MS would lose business to Apple or one of the Linuxes.
The telephone company only got to where they were because the US government *gave* them all of the telephone infrastructure.
take an economics course
I started and own a successful small business that is successfully competing against, and beating the big guys. I probably know more about real business than 99% of the people that post here, thanks. The fact is that Intel is playing hardball, yes. The fact that Slashdotters don't realize is that this is how business works. EVERYBODY plays this hard. And yes, they are squaling because they're getting their asses kicked. Why do we have laws about how businesses can compete with each other? Why shouldn't I sue my competitors because their prices are lower than mine? They're playing pretty hard with me, I can tell you.
I'm not debating the legality of it. Clearly it's illegal. What I AM asking is why do so many Slashdotters approve of this law? It seems like everyone has a raging hard-on for this law for some bizarre reason. I happen top think that the DMCA makes *much* more sense than this law does for example, but Slashdotters hate, and ignore the DMCA. There are lots and lots and lots of laws on the books that are immoral and wrong. I happen to think that this is one of them. Why such strong support for such a ridiculous law?
If customers want a product but have trouble finding people to provide it, there is something else happening which is screwing up the natural principles of supply-and-demand.
I disagree. That happens on a daily basis. Case in point... there's a product that I used to buy weekly here in town. Wal-Mart put them out of business, and now I can't find this product because nobody else sells it. That's natural.
Another example... in my store, there are lots and lots of products that I don't carry because 1. the margin is too low 2. the margin on a competing product is better 3. the vendor is giving me an incentive to carry that product. That's not unnatural. Every vendor has the right to decide if say, carrying AMD chips is worth harming their relationship with Intel. That's their choice. Hell, I about 100 products that I would like to sell online, but I cannot because the manufacturer has said that if I do, they will stop selling to me altogether. Now, this pisses me off, but I can still decide to either carry their products on their terms or not. Again, that's standard. It may not be *friendly*, but in no way should it be illegal. Let the market sort it out. If AMD offers a better value, or better service, or better terms, or whatever, then vendors may very well choose to sell AMD only and tell Intel to fuck off. There's nothing saying that they can't. This is a matter of AMD not offering enough to their vendors to make it worth telling Intel to fuck off. So instead of either improving or going away, they waste our tax dollars askign the government for artifical help.
1. I'm not a lawyer.
2. I understand the allegations. I'm not saying that what they're doing is legal or illegal. What I'm saying is that the law, itself, is bullshit. You know, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. Slavery was legal in this country for a long time. Was that a good thing because it was legal? Marijuana is classified as an illegal, dangerous drug by the gov't? Does that make it true?
First off, how is what Intel doing any different than what Wal-Mart does on a daily basis? Or Starbucks, or any other company. Any time one company forces another out of business, or simply undercuts price, they're strongarming the competition. I fail to see how this is any different.
If AMD has no proof, why would they be suing in the first place?
Proof of what? Who cares if they have "proof"? My point is that the law is total and utter bullshit. Somebody may also have "proof" that a gay couple is married, which is illegal. That in no way makes those laws any more right or valid.
Ok, but I still don't see the difference between giving vendors incentives *not* to carry a competing product and say, putting that other company out of business in other ways, altogether. Competitors regularly drive each other out of business completely. That's considered good and natural. That's how we improve efficiencies. I don't see how what they do limits consumer choice any more than, say, Wal-Mart coming into a down, undercutting everybody, and driving all competing retail out of business. If anything, that's *much* more limiting to consumer choice, but that's accepted as normal and OK.
Second is if its OK for Intel to use anti-competitive behaviour why not MS? Neither have 100% market share. What percent market share does it start being wrong to use anti-competitive tactics in your mind?
I think MS was in the right and the US gov't was wrong. If anything is arbitary, it's this law, that all Slashdotters seem to be frothing at the mouth in favor of, that says "you can compete this way, but not this way". That's bullshit. As a business owner, I say that that is bullshit. It's completely arbitary, and it boils down to one company saying "It's not fair", and expecting the gov't to help them out.
Actually, that strikes me as average business tactics, too. I have vendors that'll give me an incentive to highlight their products, but only if I don't put a competitor's on the same shelf. Happens every day. I don't see the problem.
monopolistic practices
That's great. The thing is that I don't see "monopolistic practices" as bad. It's a bad law.
What I'm trying to figure out is when the official Slashdot culture swung to support wholeheartedly the US Gov't and the Attorney General? Slashdotters, I thought, were anti-arbitrary laws, and this kind of big business monopoly stuff is about as arbitrary and forced as one can get.
I don't buy that "predatory" bullshit. It's simply a way of competing. I own a business and my vendors do it all of the time. Totally normal. What's underhanded is a company going whining to the gov't to give them a competitive advantage.
I'm in no way kidding. I see your point, but at the same time, this is how things are changed. People with money/buying power/etc. are the ones who get to effect change. Now that I own a *real* small business, with some purchasing power, I can make a difference. It may not be big, but it does make a difference. For example, there are suppliers out there that make good products, but we won't carry them because of the way the company does business. I explain that to customers, and they're usually fine with it. Either way, I'm finally getting to make a difference. And if I don't like AMD's business practices, then I won't buy any products with AMD chips in them. Now, granted, I won't pursue this policy to the point where our business would be irreparably damaged, but I'll do what I can. It's a matter of principle (and morality).
That settles it. No more business from myself or my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic. I think that this is disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost our business.
Using Windows NT servers is a symptom of lack of technical knowledge in a company.
And your statement is a symptom of your lack of technical knowledge.
Absolutely. Cripple those fuckers. Hell, foget crippling their product... why not just steal their business from them entirely? Just take their assets, their profits, etc. Who the HELL do they think they are making a successful company, anyway? Bastards. The gov't should force EVERYBODY to learn the intricacies of.config files. The gov't should FORCE everybody to learn how to code in C.
You're an idiot.
Are you suggesting that IBM robbed somebody? If so, who did they rob, and what did they rob them of?
Times are hard for everybody. Regardless of what The Idiot in the White House says, the economy is shit. Nobody is able to live at the same standard of living that they've grown used to, and it's just going to continue to get worse. Still, I'd contend that tradespeople are the most unreplaceable, and thus most likely to stay gainfully employed in our current economy. Again, eventually, everybody needs a plumber... nobody needs another marketing person or another IT administrator.
What this guy said. Absolutely.
You're right... that *does* happen in the long term. But you missed the heart of the problem: too many goddamned people, not enough resources. Corporations do the best that they can, just like individuals do, only on a much larger scale.
Really? So then what are people going to do when their toilet stops working? Shit on the floor?
People with trades will always be in demand. In fact, I'd throw "auto mechanic" into that list too. Most people can't live without working plumbing, electricity, and automobiles. People most definitely can live without yet another web site, CRM application, etc.
"good guys" and "bad guys" only exist in the movies. You certainly can't categorize giant multinational corporations as "good guys" or "bad guys". That just doesn't make any sense.
I don't like to see rising unemployment in the tech sector, either, but unionizing and legislating are not the answers. Innovation, entrepreneurship, and low tax overhead will help. We also have to face up to the fact that there are industrious and hard working people out there who will do our job on the cheap. We in the West need to wake up, start thinking more innovatively, and compete with our best tools: our creativity, education, and tremendous freedom to explore new business opportunities.
All true, but it's waaaaay too late to fix this. If anything, IT industry workers as a whole needed to realize this 10 years ago. Today, IT people still think of themselves as deserving of an inordinately large paycheck. And what's interesting is that IT people that I know and that I have talked to all seem to keep this mentality even while they're unemployed. I got my wake up call years ago, and left the IT industry for good, because I know that I'm not willing to sit in a fucking cubicle and commute with the lemmings every day for less than $xx an hour.