<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_15_1649234</id>
	<title>Intel Fires Back At FTC In Antitrust Suit</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263578880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"Intel has responded to the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust investigation, unsurprisingly <a href="http://www.gearlog.com/2010/01/intel\_fires\_back\_in\_ftc\_suit.php">challenging the FTC's allegations</a> as well as criticizing the agency for what the company calls an attempt 'to turn Intel into a public utility.' The motion is a response to the FTC's December announcement of a <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357189,00.asp">lawsuit brought by the FTC</a>, accusing Intel of anti-competitive practices. Intel also goes on to provide a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the FTC's complaint and <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357232,00.asp">proposed remedy</a>, although most of the company's response seems designed to promote the impression that those that failed, failed on their own."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " Intel has responded to the Federal Trade Commission 's antitrust investigation , unsurprisingly challenging the FTC 's allegations as well as criticizing the agency for what the company calls an attempt 'to turn Intel into a public utility .
' The motion is a response to the FTC 's December announcement of a lawsuit brought by the FTC , accusing Intel of anti-competitive practices .
Intel also goes on to provide a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the FTC 's complaint and proposed remedy , although most of the company 's response seems designed to promote the impression that those that failed , failed on their own .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "Intel has responded to the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust investigation, unsurprisingly challenging the FTC's allegations as well as criticizing the agency for what the company calls an attempt 'to turn Intel into a public utility.
' The motion is a response to the FTC's December announcement of a lawsuit brought by the FTC, accusing Intel of anti-competitive practices.
Intel also goes on to provide a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the FTC's complaint and proposed remedy, although most of the company's response seems designed to promote the impression that those that failed, failed on their own.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782202</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting, Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions, nor is it actually a hindrance in today's or even last year's market.</i></p><p>That is not the theory the FTC is presenting, and the issues that the FTC is investigating don't involve today's or even last year's market.</p><p>The theory involves intel's business practices over many years and their efforts to lock out or marginalize them by making agreements with OEMs that said they were required to do exactly that or be at a huge competitive disadvantage vs everyone else who was willing to play ball with Intel.  Just as one example.</p><p><i>There are some competitors to Intel (AMD) that don't even OWN fabrication facilities. They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.</i></p><p>Yes AMD chose to spin off their fabs, because they literally had no other choice.  Debt was piling up, and this made securing the incredible amount of funding necessary to build new fabs impossible.</p><p>But barring their own spun-off fabs, no they do not have access to "competitive foundries" that can produce their product.  Intel was already ahead of AMD's fabs, and AMD's fab is ahead of all the foundries (not counting that AMD uses SOI and all the foundries use bulk), who have neither the capacity nor the time to dedicate to tweaking their processes specifically for AMD's needs so they have a chance of remaining competitive with Intel.  AMD is just as dependent on "their own" fabs as ever.</p><p>That said, Intel having a fab and AMD selling theirs off (though it's still on AMD's books) is not the FTC's complaint as TFA explains.  You rread a lot into the OP that wasn't really being said.  They just said anti-trust made sense in chip sales because of the barriers to entry.  The actual issue was and is anti-trust, not the barrier to entry itself.</p><p><i>Similarly, competitors such as Freescale etc.</i></p><p>Sorry but LOL.</p><p><i>The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor's poor choices, if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.</i></p><p>That's right, they are chartered to address anti-competitive business practices on the part of the monopolist, which is what they are doing.</p><p><i>Intel has a good point. </i></p><p>Intel is not making the point you think they're making.</p><p>Also, they will of course <i>say</i> they have a good point, but it's the exact same points they made to the Japanese and EU trade commissions and during AMD's lawsuit against them, and they didn't fly then.  Our FTC seems to move even slower than the others, but part of the reason they're waiting so long and talking about issues from the past is because they have spent a long time investigating and gathering evidence to make their case.</p><p>Assuming they have some of the same evidence as the EU that I've seen, Intel doesn't have much of a chance.  Though even without that, anyone paying attention through the 90s and early 00s knows what Intel was up to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting , Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions , nor is it actually a hindrance in today 's or even last year 's market.That is not the theory the FTC is presenting , and the issues that the FTC is investigating do n't involve today 's or even last year 's market.The theory involves intel 's business practices over many years and their efforts to lock out or marginalize them by making agreements with OEMs that said they were required to do exactly that or be at a huge competitive disadvantage vs everyone else who was willing to play ball with Intel .
Just as one example.There are some competitors to Intel ( AMD ) that do n't even OWN fabrication facilities .
They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.Yes AMD chose to spin off their fabs , because they literally had no other choice .
Debt was piling up , and this made securing the incredible amount of funding necessary to build new fabs impossible.But barring their own spun-off fabs , no they do not have access to " competitive foundries " that can produce their product .
Intel was already ahead of AMD 's fabs , and AMD 's fab is ahead of all the foundries ( not counting that AMD uses SOI and all the foundries use bulk ) , who have neither the capacity nor the time to dedicate to tweaking their processes specifically for AMD 's needs so they have a chance of remaining competitive with Intel .
AMD is just as dependent on " their own " fabs as ever.That said , Intel having a fab and AMD selling theirs off ( though it 's still on AMD 's books ) is not the FTC 's complaint as TFA explains .
You rread a lot into the OP that was n't really being said .
They just said anti-trust made sense in chip sales because of the barriers to entry .
The actual issue was and is anti-trust , not the barrier to entry itself.Similarly , competitors such as Freescale etc.Sorry but LOL.The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor 's poor choices , if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.That 's right , they are chartered to address anti-competitive business practices on the part of the monopolist , which is what they are doing.Intel has a good point .
Intel is not making the point you think they 're making.Also , they will of course say they have a good point , but it 's the exact same points they made to the Japanese and EU trade commissions and during AMD 's lawsuit against them , and they did n't fly then .
Our FTC seems to move even slower than the others , but part of the reason they 're waiting so long and talking about issues from the past is because they have spent a long time investigating and gathering evidence to make their case.Assuming they have some of the same evidence as the EU that I 've seen , Intel does n't have much of a chance .
Though even without that , anyone paying attention through the 90s and early 00s knows what Intel was up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting, Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions, nor is it actually a hindrance in today's or even last year's market.That is not the theory the FTC is presenting, and the issues that the FTC is investigating don't involve today's or even last year's market.The theory involves intel's business practices over many years and their efforts to lock out or marginalize them by making agreements with OEMs that said they were required to do exactly that or be at a huge competitive disadvantage vs everyone else who was willing to play ball with Intel.
Just as one example.There are some competitors to Intel (AMD) that don't even OWN fabrication facilities.
They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.Yes AMD chose to spin off their fabs, because they literally had no other choice.
Debt was piling up, and this made securing the incredible amount of funding necessary to build new fabs impossible.But barring their own spun-off fabs, no they do not have access to "competitive foundries" that can produce their product.
Intel was already ahead of AMD's fabs, and AMD's fab is ahead of all the foundries (not counting that AMD uses SOI and all the foundries use bulk), who have neither the capacity nor the time to dedicate to tweaking their processes specifically for AMD's needs so they have a chance of remaining competitive with Intel.
AMD is just as dependent on "their own" fabs as ever.That said, Intel having a fab and AMD selling theirs off (though it's still on AMD's books) is not the FTC's complaint as TFA explains.
You rread a lot into the OP that wasn't really being said.
They just said anti-trust made sense in chip sales because of the barriers to entry.
The actual issue was and is anti-trust, not the barrier to entry itself.Similarly, competitors such as Freescale etc.Sorry but LOL.The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor's poor choices, if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.That's right, they are chartered to address anti-competitive business practices on the part of the monopolist, which is what they are doing.Intel has a good point.
Intel is not making the point you think they're making.Also, they will of course say they have a good point, but it's the exact same points they made to the Japanese and EU trade commissions and during AMD's lawsuit against them, and they didn't fly then.
Our FTC seems to move even slower than the others, but part of the reason they're waiting so long and talking about issues from the past is because they have spent a long time investigating and gathering evidence to make their case.Assuming they have some of the same evidence as the EU that I've seen, Intel doesn't have much of a chance.
Though even without that, anyone paying attention through the 90s and early 00s knows what Intel was up to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782402</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>archer, the</author>
	<datestamp>1263586560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, there were rumors that if a motherboard manufacturer was thinking of making new AMD boards, Intel allegedly would hint that the manufacturer might face a shortage of Intel chipsets.</p><p><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/early-athlon-motherboard-review,123-2.html?xtmc=athlon\_boards\_chipset\_shortage\_taipei&amp;xtcr=2" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/early-athlon-motherboard-review,123-2.html?xtmc=athlon\_boards\_chipset\_shortage\_taipei&amp;xtcr=2</a> [tomshardware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , there were rumors that if a motherboard manufacturer was thinking of making new AMD boards , Intel allegedly would hint that the manufacturer might face a shortage of Intel chipsets.http : //www.tomshardware.com/reviews/early-athlon-motherboard-review,123-2.html ? xtmc = athlon \ _boards \ _chipset \ _shortage \ _taipei&amp;xtcr = 2 [ tomshardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, there were rumors that if a motherboard manufacturer was thinking of making new AMD boards, Intel allegedly would hint that the manufacturer might face a shortage of Intel chipsets.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/early-athlon-motherboard-review,123-2.html?xtmc=athlon\_boards\_chipset\_shortage\_taipei&amp;xtcr=2 [tomshardware.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782028</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding is that Intel leaned heavily on other vendors to not sell competitor products.  Basically they went to people like Asus and said:  "Do you want to continue to sell motherboards which support Intel chips?  Then you must not sell any AMD compatible motherboards".  That kind of thing.  Since telling Intel to go play in traffic would be suicide for motherboard manufacturers (selling only AMD, etc was not financially viable), most of them mostly caved.  I hear for a time, some AMD compatible motherboards were sold in unmarked boxes with no manufacturer listed anywhere as a result.<br>These kinds of agreements is why the anti-trust suit happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that Intel leaned heavily on other vendors to not sell competitor products .
Basically they went to people like Asus and said : " Do you want to continue to sell motherboards which support Intel chips ?
Then you must not sell any AMD compatible motherboards " .
That kind of thing .
Since telling Intel to go play in traffic would be suicide for motherboard manufacturers ( selling only AMD , etc was not financially viable ) , most of them mostly caved .
I hear for a time , some AMD compatible motherboards were sold in unmarked boxes with no manufacturer listed anywhere as a result.These kinds of agreements is why the anti-trust suit happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that Intel leaned heavily on other vendors to not sell competitor products.
Basically they went to people like Asus and said:  "Do you want to continue to sell motherboards which support Intel chips?
Then you must not sell any AMD compatible motherboards".
That kind of thing.
Since telling Intel to go play in traffic would be suicide for motherboard manufacturers (selling only AMD, etc was not financially viable), most of them mostly caved.
I hear for a time, some AMD compatible motherboards were sold in unmarked boxes with no manufacturer listed anywhere as a result.These kinds of agreements is why the anti-trust suit happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783204</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>StayFrosty</author>
	<datestamp>1263547080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly."</p></div><p>No, it's not.  According to Wikipedia:  "In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier, but in some cases inefficiency may take place.<br> <br>

Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale which are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity. It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines), therefore it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist's market."<br> <br>

While fabs may be expensive, I really don't think that is what is keeping other companies from entering the market.  In fact, a fab has to be retooled every few years to manufacture chips with a new/smaller process.  What's keeping other companies out of the desktop CPU market is licensing.  Nvidia has been rumoured to be trying to enter the x86 cpu market for the last couple of years but has been unable due to licensing restrictions of the x86 architecture.<br> <br>AMD no longer owns their own fabs but they are still a "CPU Manufacturer."  They design the chips which are made by someone else's Fab.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I really don't think the global market can support more than 3 companies doing this.</p></div><p>

Off the top of my head:  Intel, AMD, Freescale, IBM, TI, Motorola, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, ARM (Who designs a lot of chips made by TI, Freescale and Qualcomm,) and Sun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a " natural monopoly .
" No , it 's not .
According to Wikipedia : " In economics , a natural monopoly occurs when , due to the economies of scale of a particular industry , the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier , but in some cases inefficiency may take place .
Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry , often the first supplier in a market , has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors .
This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate , creating economies of scale which are large in relation to the size of the market , and hence high barriers to entry ; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity .
It is very expensive to build transmission networks ( water/gas pipelines , electricity and telephone lines ) , therefore it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist 's market .
" While fabs may be expensive , I really do n't think that is what is keeping other companies from entering the market .
In fact , a fab has to be retooled every few years to manufacture chips with a new/smaller process .
What 's keeping other companies out of the desktop CPU market is licensing .
Nvidia has been rumoured to be trying to enter the x86 cpu market for the last couple of years but has been unable due to licensing restrictions of the x86 architecture .
AMD no longer owns their own fabs but they are still a " CPU Manufacturer .
" They design the chips which are made by someone else 's Fab.I really do n't think the global market can support more than 3 companies doing this .
Off the top of my head : Intel , AMD , Freescale , IBM , TI , Motorola , NVIDIA , Qualcomm , ARM ( Who designs a lot of chips made by TI , Freescale and Qualcomm , ) and Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly.
"No, it's not.
According to Wikipedia:  "In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier, but in some cases inefficiency may take place.
Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors.
This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale which are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity.
It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines), therefore it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist's market.
" 

While fabs may be expensive, I really don't think that is what is keeping other companies from entering the market.
In fact, a fab has to be retooled every few years to manufacture chips with a new/smaller process.
What's keeping other companies out of the desktop CPU market is licensing.
Nvidia has been rumoured to be trying to enter the x86 cpu market for the last couple of years but has been unable due to licensing restrictions of the x86 architecture.
AMD no longer owns their own fabs but they are still a "CPU Manufacturer.
"  They design the chips which are made by someone else's Fab.I really don't think the global market can support more than 3 companies doing this.
Off the top of my head:  Intel, AMD, Freescale, IBM, TI, Motorola, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, ARM (Who designs a lot of chips made by TI, Freescale and Qualcomm,) and Sun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781784</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1263583860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Bureaucrats at the FTC don't write the federal budget; that gets decided by congress which is largely owned by business interests.<br><br>The US government isn't just some monolith with no capacity for competence; it's pretty much legislators and the military portion of the executive that cause all of the country's problems.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bureaucrats at the FTC do n't write the federal budget ; that gets decided by congress which is largely owned by business interests.The US government is n't just some monolith with no capacity for competence ; it 's pretty much legislators and the military portion of the executive that cause all of the country 's problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bureaucrats at the FTC don't write the federal budget; that gets decided by congress which is largely owned by business interests.The US government isn't just some monolith with no capacity for competence; it's pretty much legislators and the military portion of the executive that cause all of the country's problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782164</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1263585420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can, and they should since there are plenty of legitimate problems they could have with intel in the anti-trust sense.</p><p>personally though it doesn't bother me too much since AMD is for the most part a legitimate competitor to intel while my ISP on the other hand has been a (quite abusive) monopoly in my area since always.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can , and they should since there are plenty of legitimate problems they could have with intel in the anti-trust sense.personally though it does n't bother me too much since AMD is for the most part a legitimate competitor to intel while my ISP on the other hand has been a ( quite abusive ) monopoly in my area since always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can, and they should since there are plenty of legitimate problems they could have with intel in the anti-trust sense.personally though it doesn't bother me too much since AMD is for the most part a legitimate competitor to intel while my ISP on the other hand has been a (quite abusive) monopoly in my area since always.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</id>
	<title>Government is best at deciding about the economy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article "In 26 statements of "contemplated relief" contained in its complaint, the FTC described what Intel's must do and not do to preserve competition."</p><p>Right, because when I think of people who know how to run a business (ya know, an entity with 10 trillion dollars in debt), I think of the Federal government. Who are these people who think they know how to maintain competition? Obviously not people who can make it in the private sector so they go work for the FTC and act like little emporers, "sticking it" to the businesses that they could never succeed against, or within.</p><p>Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10\% (or 17\% real unemployement). Give 700B to the fed and what happens???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article " In 26 statements of " contemplated relief " contained in its complaint , the FTC described what Intel 's must do and not do to preserve competition .
" Right , because when I think of people who know how to run a business ( ya know , an entity with 10 trillion dollars in debt ) , I think of the Federal government .
Who are these people who think they know how to maintain competition ?
Obviously not people who can make it in the private sector so they go work for the FTC and act like little emporers , " sticking it " to the businesses that they could never succeed against , or within.Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10 \ % ( or 17 \ % real unemployement ) .
Give 700B to the fed and what happens ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article "In 26 statements of "contemplated relief" contained in its complaint, the FTC described what Intel's must do and not do to preserve competition.
"Right, because when I think of people who know how to run a business (ya know, an entity with 10 trillion dollars in debt), I think of the Federal government.
Who are these people who think they know how to maintain competition?
Obviously not people who can make it in the private sector so they go work for the FTC and act like little emporers, "sticking it" to the businesses that they could never succeed against, or within.Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10\% (or 17\% real unemployement).
Give 700B to the fed and what happens??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1263585180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Intel has a good point.  If the a major point of the FTC's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market, then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful, and making good business decisions?  Pah.  They are in a competitive business.  AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now.  Design aside.</p></div><p>I believe that the major points in the FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips.  Specifically:<br><a href="http://www.ag.ny.gov/media\_center/2009/nov/nov4a\_09.html" title="ny.gov">http://www.ag.ny.gov/media\_center/2009/nov/nov4a\_09.html</a> [ny.gov]</p><p>By leveraging their market position, Intel provided "rebates" to customers who went with Intel exclusively.  When a computer maker wanted to offer AMD-based systems, Intel would threaten to raise their per-chip cost to a point where the maker couldn't compete.  There are plenty of other notes.  Please feel free to review and comment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel has a good point .
If the a major point of the FTC 's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market , then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful , and making good business decisions ?
Pah. They are in a competitive business .
AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now .
Design aside.I believe that the major points in the FTC 's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips .
Specifically : http : //www.ag.ny.gov/media \ _center/2009/nov/nov4a \ _09.html [ ny.gov ] By leveraging their market position , Intel provided " rebates " to customers who went with Intel exclusively .
When a computer maker wanted to offer AMD-based systems , Intel would threaten to raise their per-chip cost to a point where the maker could n't compete .
There are plenty of other notes .
Please feel free to review and comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel has a good point.
If the a major point of the FTC's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market, then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful, and making good business decisions?
Pah.  They are in a competitive business.
AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now.
Design aside.I believe that the major points in the FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips.
Specifically:http://www.ag.ny.gov/media\_center/2009/nov/nov4a\_09.html [ny.gov]By leveraging their market position, Intel provided "rebates" to customers who went with Intel exclusively.
When a computer maker wanted to offer AMD-based systems, Intel would threaten to raise their per-chip cost to a point where the maker couldn't compete.
There are plenty of other notes.
Please feel free to review and comment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783200</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263547080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Intel only has the consumer's interest in their heart and will never do anything wrong.
<br> <br>
Before you say the consumer should decide just remember it was the consumer who decided who is in the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Intel only has the consumer 's interest in their heart and will never do anything wrong .
Before you say the consumer should decide just remember it was the consumer who decided who is in the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Intel only has the consumer's interest in their heart and will never do anything wrong.
Before you say the consumer should decide just remember it was the consumer who decided who is in the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782400</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1263586500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct, to a point. At one point AMD was the performance king. However, even at that time when they clearly had the better processors, Intel was paying many different companies millions of dollars in the form of "exclusivity discounts" to not carry a competitors product. What if GMC paid all car dealers in the entire country to carry only Saturns. Would you go to another country just to buy a different make of car or just settle?</p><p>Dell, HP, Gateway, and Compaq all received what amounts to bribes (in my humble opinion) of millions of dollars to not carry their competitor's product.</p><p>If those bribes (my opinion) were not paid, Intel-based computer systems would have been</p><p>A - Still slower than their AMD Counterparts<br>B - More expensive.</p><p>Do you know of many people who, when they go computer shopping, specifically look to buy the slowest, most expensive computer?</p><p>AMD would have sold a metric ASSLOAD more computers, raking in way more capital, gaining market share, and not to be forgotten, some well-earned respect as a leader and innovator in the industry.</p><p>Intel stooped to what amounts to bribery. (in my opinion) I believe this is the crux of the charges the FTC has leveled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct , to a point .
At one point AMD was the performance king .
However , even at that time when they clearly had the better processors , Intel was paying many different companies millions of dollars in the form of " exclusivity discounts " to not carry a competitors product .
What if GMC paid all car dealers in the entire country to carry only Saturns .
Would you go to another country just to buy a different make of car or just settle ? Dell , HP , Gateway , and Compaq all received what amounts to bribes ( in my humble opinion ) of millions of dollars to not carry their competitor 's product.If those bribes ( my opinion ) were not paid , Intel-based computer systems would have beenA - Still slower than their AMD CounterpartsB - More expensive.Do you know of many people who , when they go computer shopping , specifically look to buy the slowest , most expensive computer ? AMD would have sold a metric ASSLOAD more computers , raking in way more capital , gaining market share , and not to be forgotten , some well-earned respect as a leader and innovator in the industry.Intel stooped to what amounts to bribery .
( in my opinion ) I believe this is the crux of the charges the FTC has leveled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct, to a point.
At one point AMD was the performance king.
However, even at that time when they clearly had the better processors, Intel was paying many different companies millions of dollars in the form of "exclusivity discounts" to not carry a competitors product.
What if GMC paid all car dealers in the entire country to carry only Saturns.
Would you go to another country just to buy a different make of car or just settle?Dell, HP, Gateway, and Compaq all received what amounts to bribes (in my humble opinion) of millions of dollars to not carry their competitor's product.If those bribes (my opinion) were not paid, Intel-based computer systems would have beenA - Still slower than their AMD CounterpartsB - More expensive.Do you know of many people who, when they go computer shopping, specifically look to buy the slowest, most expensive computer?AMD would have sold a metric ASSLOAD more computers, raking in way more capital, gaining market share, and not to be forgotten, some well-earned respect as a leader and innovator in the industry.Intel stooped to what amounts to bribery.
(in my opinion) I believe this is the crux of the charges the FTC has leveled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781716</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, what about putting Wall Street bankers in charge of running the business? They've shown that they can manage money. <b>OH WAIT.</b> No they haven't. They needed to be bailed out by the very same federal government that you hate.</p><p>Well, what about putting the leaders of other large manufacturing concerns like GM and Chryslers in charge? They've shown that they can manage money. <b>OH WAIT.</b> No they haven't. They also needed to be bailed out by the very same federal government that you hate.</p><p>Fuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , what about putting Wall Street bankers in charge of running the business ?
They 've shown that they can manage money .
OH WAIT .
No they have n't .
They needed to be bailed out by the very same federal government that you hate.Well , what about putting the leaders of other large manufacturing concerns like GM and Chryslers in charge ?
They 've shown that they can manage money .
OH WAIT .
No they have n't .
They also needed to be bailed out by the very same federal government that you hate.Fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, what about putting Wall Street bankers in charge of running the business?
They've shown that they can manage money.
OH WAIT.
No they haven't.
They needed to be bailed out by the very same federal government that you hate.Well, what about putting the leaders of other large manufacturing concerns like GM and Chryslers in charge?
They've shown that they can manage money.
OH WAIT.
No they haven't.
They also needed to be bailed out by the very same federal government that you hate.Fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30789922</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1263652980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they said, "We caught you buying coffee at McDonalds.  If you do it again, we will double your price.  If you don't, then we'll sell our coffee 10 cents below Mickey D's price"..... then yes they would be drug into court by the FTC for violating antitrust law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they said , " We caught you buying coffee at McDonalds .
If you do it again , we will double your price .
If you do n't , then we 'll sell our coffee 10 cents below Mickey D 's price " ..... then yes they would be drug into court by the FTC for violating antitrust law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they said, "We caught you buying coffee at McDonalds.
If you do it again, we will double your price.
If you don't, then we'll sell our coffee 10 cents below Mickey D's price"..... then yes they would be drug into court by the FTC for violating antitrust law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782938</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263588840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Standard Oil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Standard Oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standard Oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781698</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, anti-trust issues are exactly the sort of thing that needs to be handled by the government because no one else is in a position to do so. There are many good reasons for anti-trust issues: 1) large controling companies in industries can hurt customers, stifle competition and stifle innovation. 2) They make industries and the economy as a whole more vulnerable to sudden fluctuations (look what happened in the banking industry. That was in part because the largest banks were too large. Unfortunately, we haven't really dealt with that part of the problem...). The FTC doesn't need to know how to run a business. They just need to know how to identify anti-competitive practices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , anti-trust issues are exactly the sort of thing that needs to be handled by the government because no one else is in a position to do so .
There are many good reasons for anti-trust issues : 1 ) large controling companies in industries can hurt customers , stifle competition and stifle innovation .
2 ) They make industries and the economy as a whole more vulnerable to sudden fluctuations ( look what happened in the banking industry .
That was in part because the largest banks were too large .
Unfortunately , we have n't really dealt with that part of the problem... ) .
The FTC does n't need to know how to run a business .
They just need to know how to identify anti-competitive practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, anti-trust issues are exactly the sort of thing that needs to be handled by the government because no one else is in a position to do so.
There are many good reasons for anti-trust issues: 1) large controling companies in industries can hurt customers, stifle competition and stifle innovation.
2) They make industries and the economy as a whole more vulnerable to sudden fluctuations (look what happened in the banking industry.
That was in part because the largest banks were too large.
Unfortunately, we haven't really dealt with that part of the problem...).
The FTC doesn't need to know how to run a business.
They just need to know how to identify anti-competitive practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781912</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1263584340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think part of the problem is Intels business practices. Namely: While Athlon was "king of the world" Intel cut out AMDs share, not due to better product or prices, but tue to unfair business practices.</p><p>That being said, this case would have been much more appropriate then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think part of the problem is Intels business practices .
Namely : While Athlon was " king of the world " Intel cut out AMDs share , not due to better product or prices , but tue to unfair business practices.That being said , this case would have been much more appropriate then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think part of the problem is Intels business practices.
Namely: While Athlon was "king of the world" Intel cut out AMDs share, not due to better product or prices, but tue to unfair business practices.That being said, this case would have been much more appropriate then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782324</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>mpfife</author>
	<datestamp>1263586140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I don't understand this lawsuit at all.<p>
According to Slashdot - AMD has been the leader for year and YEARS now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't understand this lawsuit at all .
According to Slashdot - AMD has been the leader for year and YEARS now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't understand this lawsuit at all.
According to Slashdot - AMD has been the leader for year and YEARS now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781450</id>
	<title>Nazis.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, and I had to put away my mod points and respond.</p><p>"it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market"</p><p>I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting, Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions, nor is it actually a hindrance in today's or even last year's market.</p><p>There are some competitors to Intel (AMD) that don't even OWN fabrication facilities.  They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.  Similarly, competitors such as Freescale etc. also have their own foundries and can even find other manufacturers.  There is a thriving boutique business for chips, and multiple CPU makers with multiple manufacturing options.</p><p>Now, if the FTC thinks Intel has an unfair advantage because they own their fabs, well, AMD chose a different route.  Emphasis on CHOSE.  The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor's poor choices, if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.</p><p>Intel has a good point.  If the a major point of the FTC's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market, then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful, and making good business decisions?  Pah.  They are in a competitive business.  AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now.  Design aside.</p><p>The FTC has to do better than this.</p><p>ps - It should be obvious IANAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , and I had to put away my mod points and respond .
" it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market " I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting , Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions , nor is it actually a hindrance in today 's or even last year 's market.There are some competitors to Intel ( AMD ) that do n't even OWN fabrication facilities .
They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product .
Similarly , competitors such as Freescale etc .
also have their own foundries and can even find other manufacturers .
There is a thriving boutique business for chips , and multiple CPU makers with multiple manufacturing options.Now , if the FTC thinks Intel has an unfair advantage because they own their fabs , well , AMD chose a different route .
Emphasis on CHOSE .
The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor 's poor choices , if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.Intel has a good point .
If the a major point of the FTC 's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market , then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful , and making good business decisions ?
Pah. They are in a competitive business .
AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now .
Design aside.The FTC has to do better than this.ps - It should be obvious IANAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, and I had to put away my mod points and respond.
"it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market"I suspect that if this is the theory the FTC is presenting, Intel is correctly going to counter that this is neither sufficient grounds for additional restrictions, nor is it actually a hindrance in today's or even last year's market.There are some competitors to Intel (AMD) that don't even OWN fabrication facilities.
They have access to competitive foundries that can produce their product.
Similarly, competitors such as Freescale etc.
also have their own foundries and can even find other manufacturers.
There is a thriving boutique business for chips, and multiple CPU makers with multiple manufacturing options.Now, if the FTC thinks Intel has an unfair advantage because they own their fabs, well, AMD chose a different route.
Emphasis on CHOSE.
The FTC is not chartered to address a competitor's poor choices, if indeed AMD made a poor choice in being fabless.Intel has a good point.
If the a major point of the FTC's inquiry is that they have an integrated presence in the market, then is Intel being penalized partly for merely being successful, and making good business decisions?
Pah.  They are in a competitive business.
AMD is suffering as much for their choice in manufacturing partners as anythuing right now.
Design aside.The FTC has to do better than this.ps - It should be obvious IANAL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783936</id>
	<title>Re:wow. get a load of that arrogance.</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1263550140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Overall this thread is a good read, and it's obvious from the posts the understanding of the principles and circumstances is well informed. I've some economics schooling from undergrad studies and thus a fairly clear understanding of the rebuttal inherent in intel's claim that the FTC wants to turn them into a public utility, but I think those points have been well covered. Instead I'd like to point out that the western capitalist markets have swung deeply into litigious territory and lawsuits are now an everyday tool. There's a 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' attitude that pushes corporations to pursue maximum profits from every possible means. My undergrad level economics courses spoke of the concept of <a href="http://www.investorwords.com/3119/moral\_suasion.html" title="investorwords.com">moral suasion</a> [investorwords.com]. Moral suasion, in Canada, was a means the Bank of Canada had as a means of swaying the banking community to follow Bank of Canada money policies. By perhaps bad analogy, the point I'm trying to make is that the community ethics and principles that are implicit in a concept like moral suasion are now anachronistic. With globalization and gargantuan consumer markets has come business practices that more reflect the difficulties in trying to impart a sense of community or national standards on international corporations that compete across many national boundaries and necessarily develop business strategies and tactics wherein governments are just other pieces on the board. Tied into the new world business strategies and exacerbating the situation is that publicly held corporations are intended to reward their investors with maximal profits. Thus, to a large extent intel's current circumstance just reflects the practices of a world market player. For me the sea change that introduced the new market was kicked off with Big Blue's late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_IBM#1960.E2.80.931969:\_The\_System.2F360\_era" title="wikipedia.org">1960 monopoly case</a> [wikipedia.org] because IBM demonstrated that mega corporations have the resources to win legal wars of attrition even against big league governments. The more so because every government was as eager to woo large corporations to invest in their countries as they were to sue them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Overall this thread is a good read , and it 's obvious from the posts the understanding of the principles and circumstances is well informed .
I 've some economics schooling from undergrad studies and thus a fairly clear understanding of the rebuttal inherent in intel 's claim that the FTC wants to turn them into a public utility , but I think those points have been well covered .
Instead I 'd like to point out that the western capitalist markets have swung deeply into litigious territory and lawsuits are now an everyday tool .
There 's a 'damn the torpedoes , full speed ahead ' attitude that pushes corporations to pursue maximum profits from every possible means .
My undergrad level economics courses spoke of the concept of moral suasion [ investorwords.com ] .
Moral suasion , in Canada , was a means the Bank of Canada had as a means of swaying the banking community to follow Bank of Canada money policies .
By perhaps bad analogy , the point I 'm trying to make is that the community ethics and principles that are implicit in a concept like moral suasion are now anachronistic .
With globalization and gargantuan consumer markets has come business practices that more reflect the difficulties in trying to impart a sense of community or national standards on international corporations that compete across many national boundaries and necessarily develop business strategies and tactics wherein governments are just other pieces on the board .
Tied into the new world business strategies and exacerbating the situation is that publicly held corporations are intended to reward their investors with maximal profits .
Thus , to a large extent intel 's current circumstance just reflects the practices of a world market player .
For me the sea change that introduced the new market was kicked off with Big Blue 's late 1960 monopoly case [ wikipedia.org ] because IBM demonstrated that mega corporations have the resources to win legal wars of attrition even against big league governments .
The more so because every government was as eager to woo large corporations to invest in their countries as they were to sue them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overall this thread is a good read, and it's obvious from the posts the understanding of the principles and circumstances is well informed.
I've some economics schooling from undergrad studies and thus a fairly clear understanding of the rebuttal inherent in intel's claim that the FTC wants to turn them into a public utility, but I think those points have been well covered.
Instead I'd like to point out that the western capitalist markets have swung deeply into litigious territory and lawsuits are now an everyday tool.
There's a 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' attitude that pushes corporations to pursue maximum profits from every possible means.
My undergrad level economics courses spoke of the concept of moral suasion [investorwords.com].
Moral suasion, in Canada, was a means the Bank of Canada had as a means of swaying the banking community to follow Bank of Canada money policies.
By perhaps bad analogy, the point I'm trying to make is that the community ethics and principles that are implicit in a concept like moral suasion are now anachronistic.
With globalization and gargantuan consumer markets has come business practices that more reflect the difficulties in trying to impart a sense of community or national standards on international corporations that compete across many national boundaries and necessarily develop business strategies and tactics wherein governments are just other pieces on the board.
Tied into the new world business strategies and exacerbating the situation is that publicly held corporations are intended to reward their investors with maximal profits.
Thus, to a large extent intel's current circumstance just reflects the practices of a world market player.
For me the sea change that introduced the new market was kicked off with Big Blue's late 1960 monopoly case [wikipedia.org] because IBM demonstrated that mega corporations have the resources to win legal wars of attrition even against big league governments.
The more so because every government was as eager to woo large corporations to invest in their countries as they were to sue them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783694</id>
	<title>Antitrust is simple</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1263549180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just need to make a law from the following principal:
</p><p>
Giving a discount based on the quantity a customer buys - Good Legal Business Idea</p><p>
Giving less of a discount based on the quantity of competitors products a customer buys - Antitrust problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just need to make a law from the following principal : Giving a discount based on the quantity a customer buys - Good Legal Business Idea Giving less of a discount based on the quantity of competitors products a customer buys - Antitrust problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just need to make a law from the following principal:

Giving a discount based on the quantity a customer buys - Good Legal Business Idea
Giving less of a discount based on the quantity of competitors products a customer buys - Antitrust problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</id>
	<title>I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>i\_ate\_god</author>
	<datestamp>1263583740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could have sworn that at one time, the Athlon was king of the world, then the Core 2 Duo's came out and Intel was king of the world since because AMD hasn't made a superior CPU.</p><p>Is Intel supposed to purposefully degrade the quality of their product? What is it that they did that has the FTC crying foul?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have sworn that at one time , the Athlon was king of the world , then the Core 2 Duo 's came out and Intel was king of the world since because AMD has n't made a superior CPU.Is Intel supposed to purposefully degrade the quality of their product ?
What is it that they did that has the FTC crying foul ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have sworn that at one time, the Athlon was king of the world, then the Core 2 Duo's came out and Intel was king of the world since because AMD hasn't made a superior CPU.Is Intel supposed to purposefully degrade the quality of their product?
What is it that they did that has the FTC crying foul?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30789908</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1263652800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips</p><p>The record companies were sued by the FTC for similar acts ~10 years ago.  They told retailers like Walmart, Target, et cetera that they *must* sell CDs for $12 minimum, otherwise the stores would be cutoff from the supply.  The FTC almost won their case, but then the record companies agreed to pay a huge fine just prior to the final verdict.</p><p>I would not be surprised to see Intel do the same thing.  Price-fixing is illegal under current law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; FTC 's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chipsThe record companies were sued by the FTC for similar acts ~ 10 years ago .
They told retailers like Walmart , Target , et cetera that they * must * sell CDs for $ 12 minimum , otherwise the stores would be cutoff from the supply .
The FTC almost won their case , but then the record companies agreed to pay a huge fine just prior to the final verdict.I would not be surprised to see Intel do the same thing .
Price-fixing is illegal under current law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chipsThe record companies were sued by the FTC for similar acts ~10 years ago.
They told retailers like Walmart, Target, et cetera that they *must* sell CDs for $12 minimum, otherwise the stores would be cutoff from the supply.
The FTC almost won their case, but then the record companies agreed to pay a huge fine just prior to the final verdict.I would not be surprised to see Intel do the same thing.
Price-fixing is illegal under current law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782970</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263589020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, if the FTC thinks Intel has an unfair advantage because they own their fabs, well, AMD chose a different route. Emphasis on CHOSE.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not convinced it was a choice but instead suspect they were coerced by market forces. AMD doesn't have the multi-billion dollar war chest that Intel has to be able to spend on new multi-billion$ fabs. So when AMD needed to build a new fab for the next process generation, they would have needed to borrow lots of money at a time when the banks weren't lending even if you offered your first-born. So they split off the fabs and found an outside investor for that and kept their IP family jewels. If this is correct then it actually reinforces the GP's point about high barriers to entry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if the FTC thinks Intel has an unfair advantage because they own their fabs , well , AMD chose a different route .
Emphasis on CHOSE.I 'm not convinced it was a choice but instead suspect they were coerced by market forces .
AMD does n't have the multi-billion dollar war chest that Intel has to be able to spend on new multi-billion $ fabs .
So when AMD needed to build a new fab for the next process generation , they would have needed to borrow lots of money at a time when the banks were n't lending even if you offered your first-born .
So they split off the fabs and found an outside investor for that and kept their IP family jewels .
If this is correct then it actually reinforces the GP 's point about high barriers to entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if the FTC thinks Intel has an unfair advantage because they own their fabs, well, AMD chose a different route.
Emphasis on CHOSE.I'm not convinced it was a choice but instead suspect they were coerced by market forces.
AMD doesn't have the multi-billion dollar war chest that Intel has to be able to spend on new multi-billion$ fabs.
So when AMD needed to build a new fab for the next process generation, they would have needed to borrow lots of money at a time when the banks weren't lending even if you offered your first-born.
So they split off the fabs and found an outside investor for that and kept their IP family jewels.
If this is correct then it actually reinforces the GP's point about high barriers to entry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781836</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't quite remember the details, but I think basically what they did was throttle their hardware if its running in synch with their competitors products, for no apparent reason besides making their products look better.</p><p>Can someone back me up on that? Or did I make that up in a dream one night...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't quite remember the details , but I think basically what they did was throttle their hardware if its running in synch with their competitors products , for no apparent reason besides making their products look better.Can someone back me up on that ?
Or did I make that up in a dream one night.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't quite remember the details, but I think basically what they did was throttle their hardware if its running in synch with their competitors products, for no apparent reason besides making their products look better.Can someone back me up on that?
Or did I make that up in a dream one night...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782024</id>
	<title>Keep firing, Intel!</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1263584880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOWx-8ecTTI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOWx-8ecTTI</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = vOWx-8ecTTI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOWx-8ecTTI [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783870</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263549780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starbucks gives me incentives to only buy my coffee from them, should they be shut down for that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starbucks gives me incentives to only buy my coffee from them , should they be shut down for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starbucks gives me incentives to only buy my coffee from them, should they be shut down for that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30784914</id>
	<title>Illegal not competitive</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1263554580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the problems is that Intel was proven to pay OEM's (Dell specifically) a large sum of money to delay the launch of Opteron based products.  It's a long read but to get a better handle on this, I suggest reading New York's antitrust suit:

<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/22112342/Nyag-v-Intel-Complaint-Final" title="scribd.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/22112342/Nyag-v-Intel-Complaint-Final</a> [scribd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems is that Intel was proven to pay OEM 's ( Dell specifically ) a large sum of money to delay the launch of Opteron based products .
It 's a long read but to get a better handle on this , I suggest reading New York 's antitrust suit : http : //www.scribd.com/doc/22112342/Nyag-v-Intel-Complaint-Final [ scribd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems is that Intel was proven to pay OEM's (Dell specifically) a large sum of money to delay the launch of Opteron based products.
It's a long read but to get a better handle on this, I suggest reading New York's antitrust suit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22112342/Nyag-v-Intel-Complaint-Final [scribd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781962</id>
	<title>wow. get a load of that arrogance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its surprising to see how arrogant the intel people in america are, despite the fact that their company has been fined already in other countries like korea for wrongdoing and antitrust. and big time too.</p><p>one would think that they would at least have a little bit shame and dignity when facing public this time in an antitrust case. but, they behave totally to the opposite.</p><p>it seems you americans tolerate corporate greed and arrogance way too much. now they are devoid of shame too  at last. even not faking it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its surprising to see how arrogant the intel people in america are , despite the fact that their company has been fined already in other countries like korea for wrongdoing and antitrust .
and big time too.one would think that they would at least have a little bit shame and dignity when facing public this time in an antitrust case .
but , they behave totally to the opposite.it seems you americans tolerate corporate greed and arrogance way too much .
now they are devoid of shame too at last .
even not faking it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its surprising to see how arrogant the intel people in america are, despite the fact that their company has been fined already in other countries like korea for wrongdoing and antitrust.
and big time too.one would think that they would at least have a little bit shame and dignity when facing public this time in an antitrust case.
but, they behave totally to the opposite.it seems you americans tolerate corporate greed and arrogance way too much.
now they are devoid of shame too  at last.
even not faking it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263584160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly"; I really don't think the global market can support more than 3 companies doing this. That still doesn't justify Intel's use of "co-marketing" money, wherein Intel pays all of PC vendor's advertising costs, but only if they don't use competitor's chips. Intel is willing to do practically anything for a "design win", but that is just good ol' fashioned competition. Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate the effects of Intel's anti-competitive behavior from the effects of Intel's competitors simply having far fewer resources with which to compete. I, for one, would be happy if computer customers were free to choose whatever CPU they want without interference from Intel. (Just like they should be able to choose whatever OS they want without interference from Microsoft.) Intel has shown that except for major screw-ups like Whitehall, they can compete quite well based just on innovation and actual merit. But consumers are best served by having a choice, which keeps Intel honest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a " natural monopoly " ; I really do n't think the global market can support more than 3 companies doing this .
That still does n't justify Intel 's use of " co-marketing " money , wherein Intel pays all of PC vendor 's advertising costs , but only if they do n't use competitor 's chips .
Intel is willing to do practically anything for a " design win " , but that is just good ol ' fashioned competition .
Unfortunately , it is difficult to separate the effects of Intel 's anti-competitive behavior from the effects of Intel 's competitors simply having far fewer resources with which to compete .
I , for one , would be happy if computer customers were free to choose whatever CPU they want without interference from Intel .
( Just like they should be able to choose whatever OS they want without interference from Microsoft .
) Intel has shown that except for major screw-ups like Whitehall , they can compete quite well based just on innovation and actual merit .
But consumers are best served by having a choice , which keeps Intel honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly"; I really don't think the global market can support more than 3 companies doing this.
That still doesn't justify Intel's use of "co-marketing" money, wherein Intel pays all of PC vendor's advertising costs, but only if they don't use competitor's chips.
Intel is willing to do practically anything for a "design win", but that is just good ol' fashioned competition.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate the effects of Intel's anti-competitive behavior from the effects of Intel's competitors simply having far fewer resources with which to compete.
I, for one, would be happy if computer customers were free to choose whatever CPU they want without interference from Intel.
(Just like they should be able to choose whatever OS they want without interference from Microsoft.
) Intel has shown that except for major screw-ups like Whitehall, they can compete quite well based just on innovation and actual merit.
But consumers are best served by having a choice, which keeps Intel honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30784060</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1263550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>something like this:</p><ul>
	<li> <strong>intel</strong>: going to ship AMD-based systems are you?</li><li> <strong>PC manufacturer</strong>: yes.</li><li> <strong>intel:</strong> oh really. by the way, the price of that lot of intel CPUs you plan to purchase just doubled.</li><li> <strong>PC manufacturer</strong>:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</li></ul><p>the PC manufacturer had to ship intel-based systems because there was some significant portion of consumers that recognize the intel brand name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... despite the fact that intel-based CPUs were inferior to AMD at the time. that's called anti-competitive practices<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for the obvious reason that AMD wasn't being allowed to compete based on price / technical / marketing merits.</p><p>would intel have technical superiority over AMD right now if the playing field was level during the 90's-00's? good question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>something like this : intel : going to ship AMD-based systems are you ?
PC manufacturer : yes .
intel : oh really .
by the way , the price of that lot of intel CPUs you plan to purchase just doubled .
PC manufacturer : ...the PC manufacturer had to ship intel-based systems because there was some significant portion of consumers that recognize the intel brand name ... despite the fact that intel-based CPUs were inferior to AMD at the time .
that 's called anti-competitive practices ... for the obvious reason that AMD was n't being allowed to compete based on price / technical / marketing merits.would intel have technical superiority over AMD right now if the playing field was level during the 90 's-00 's ?
good question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something like this:
	 intel: going to ship AMD-based systems are you?
PC manufacturer: yes.
intel: oh really.
by the way, the price of that lot of intel CPUs you plan to purchase just doubled.
PC manufacturer: ...the PC manufacturer had to ship intel-based systems because there was some significant portion of consumers that recognize the intel brand name ... despite the fact that intel-based CPUs were inferior to AMD at the time.
that's called anti-competitive practices ... for the obvious reason that AMD wasn't being allowed to compete based on price / technical / marketing merits.would intel have technical superiority over AMD right now if the playing field was level during the 90's-00's?
good question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783332</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1263547560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only one i remember is the Intel Compiler optimizations only working on Intel CPU's..</p><p>Such as doing some math tasks via MMX - even though AMD's had MMX the compiler wouldn't put in the optimizations unless the CPU was identified as Intel.</p><p>People got pissed because Intel's compiler was the defacto default for a alot of people - but if you think about it - why should they be responsiable for optimizing a compiler for a competitors CPU? and dealing with all the bug checkking that has to go into it.</p><p>Say they had allowed it to do the optimization and AMD's cpu had an erata that caused it to fail and crash the program because of the optimization - people would be pointing the finger at Intel's compiler..</p><p>honestly i would have done what they did - and say screw it - if they want optimizations they can release their own compiler.</p><p><a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567108/intel-compiler-cripples-code-amd-via-chips" title="theinquirer.net">http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567108/intel-compiler-cripples-code-amd-via-chips</a> [theinquirer.net]</p><p>then you have to look at stuff like this</p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=518" title="zdnet.com">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=518</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>the marketing racket they had with dell - yea that was wrong - but leave their compiler out of it - AMD should release their own if they want optimizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only one i remember is the Intel Compiler optimizations only working on Intel CPU 's..Such as doing some math tasks via MMX - even though AMD 's had MMX the compiler would n't put in the optimizations unless the CPU was identified as Intel.People got pissed because Intel 's compiler was the defacto default for a alot of people - but if you think about it - why should they be responsiable for optimizing a compiler for a competitors CPU ?
and dealing with all the bug checkking that has to go into it.Say they had allowed it to do the optimization and AMD 's cpu had an erata that caused it to fail and crash the program because of the optimization - people would be pointing the finger at Intel 's compiler..honestly i would have done what they did - and say screw it - if they want optimizations they can release their own compiler.http : //www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567108/intel-compiler-cripples-code-amd-via-chips [ theinquirer.net ] then you have to look at stuff like thishttp : //blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/ ? p = 518 [ zdnet.com ] the marketing racket they had with dell - yea that was wrong - but leave their compiler out of it - AMD should release their own if they want optimizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only one i remember is the Intel Compiler optimizations only working on Intel CPU's..Such as doing some math tasks via MMX - even though AMD's had MMX the compiler wouldn't put in the optimizations unless the CPU was identified as Intel.People got pissed because Intel's compiler was the defacto default for a alot of people - but if you think about it - why should they be responsiable for optimizing a compiler for a competitors CPU?
and dealing with all the bug checkking that has to go into it.Say they had allowed it to do the optimization and AMD's cpu had an erata that caused it to fail and crash the program because of the optimization - people would be pointing the finger at Intel's compiler..honestly i would have done what they did - and say screw it - if they want optimizations they can release their own compiler.http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567108/intel-compiler-cripples-code-amd-via-chips [theinquirer.net]then you have to look at stuff like thishttp://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=518 [zdnet.com]the marketing racket they had with dell - yea that was wrong - but leave their compiler out of it - AMD should release their own if they want optimizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782118</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>Snarkalicious</author>
	<datestamp>1263585240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Preservation of competition is about maintaing the health of the consumer market.  The FTC isn't saying that Intel doesn't know how to make money, but that their practices are threatening to the maintenance of a robust competitive market.  Capitalism without a framework of rules and standards that is about as sustainable over the long-term as the communist shadows your sig line is barking at.  Take it from a left wing progressive: The policies put forth by Obama are centrist.  The center has just been far enough to port long enough that most folks don't recognize it anymore.

Oh, and when we gave the Fed those billions, what they did was to prevent a total sieze-up of credit markets, without which large scale economic movement is essentially impossible.  What they did there was to save capitalism from the ravages of an underregulated market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Preservation of competition is about maintaing the health of the consumer market .
The FTC is n't saying that Intel does n't know how to make money , but that their practices are threatening to the maintenance of a robust competitive market .
Capitalism without a framework of rules and standards that is about as sustainable over the long-term as the communist shadows your sig line is barking at .
Take it from a left wing progressive : The policies put forth by Obama are centrist .
The center has just been far enough to port long enough that most folks do n't recognize it anymore .
Oh , and when we gave the Fed those billions , what they did was to prevent a total sieze-up of credit markets , without which large scale economic movement is essentially impossible .
What they did there was to save capitalism from the ravages of an underregulated market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preservation of competition is about maintaing the health of the consumer market.
The FTC isn't saying that Intel doesn't know how to make money, but that their practices are threatening to the maintenance of a robust competitive market.
Capitalism without a framework of rules and standards that is about as sustainable over the long-term as the communist shadows your sig line is barking at.
Take it from a left wing progressive: The policies put forth by Obama are centrist.
The center has just been far enough to port long enough that most folks don't recognize it anymore.
Oh, and when we gave the Fed those billions, what they did was to prevent a total sieze-up of credit markets, without which large scale economic movement is essentially impossible.
What they did there was to save capitalism from the ravages of an underregulated market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30785202</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1263556140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Natural monopoly? Without the government stopping other companies from making compatible processors, there would be a lot of competition. If you look at other places where processors are used, you notice that no one has any problem competing. The only reason Intel/AMD have their oligopoly (duopoly?) is because no one else is legally able to compete with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural monopoly ?
Without the government stopping other companies from making compatible processors , there would be a lot of competition .
If you look at other places where processors are used , you notice that no one has any problem competing .
The only reason Intel/AMD have their oligopoly ( duopoly ?
) is because no one else is legally able to compete with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural monopoly?
Without the government stopping other companies from making compatible processors, there would be a lot of competition.
If you look at other places where processors are used, you notice that no one has any problem competing.
The only reason Intel/AMD have their oligopoly (duopoly?
) is because no one else is legally able to compete with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781800</id>
	<title>Except....</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263583920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thus, it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market.</i></p><p>That steelmaking is an area where a lot of people do enter the market.  The USA and the UK blew up every steel mill in Germany and Japan during World War II, but, the lead the USA had in steel was destroyed not even 20 years after the war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus , it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market.That steelmaking is an area where a lot of people do enter the market .
The USA and the UK blew up every steel mill in Germany and Japan during World War II , but , the lead the USA had in steel was destroyed not even 20 years after the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus, it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market.That steelmaking is an area where a lot of people do enter the market.
The USA and the UK blew up every steel mill in Germany and Japan during World War II, but, the lead the USA had in steel was destroyed not even 20 years after the war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781876</id>
	<title>Intel was part of a cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel got big and powerful by being Microsoft's asshole buddy. And up until now, Intel let Microsoft take all the anti-trust heat. Well, now it's Intel's turn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel got big and powerful by being Microsoft 's asshole buddy .
And up until now , Intel let Microsoft take all the anti-trust heat .
Well , now it 's Intel 's turn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel got big and powerful by being Microsoft's asshole buddy.
And up until now, Intel let Microsoft take all the anti-trust heat.
Well, now it's Intel's turn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781852</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1263584100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From the article "In 26 statements of "contemplated relief" contained in its complaint, the FTC described what Intel's must do and not do to preserve competition."</p><p>Right, because when I think of people who know how to run a business (ya know, an entity with 10 trillion dollars in debt), I think of the Federal government.</p></div></blockquote><p>"Preserving competition", which is what the FTC is saying what must be done to do, and "running a business" are distinctly different, and often opposed, goals. Someone running a business wants to eliminate their competition, not preserve it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10\% (or 17\% real unemployement).</p></div> </blockquote><p>Your personal guarantee might be worth something for that proposition if you had the capacity and a legally binding obligation to repay the $700 billion if IBM failed to deliver. But even then, it would be an inducement to try the experiment by mitigating the cost if you were wrong, not a basis for believeing the claim that you make. If you want people to believe that claim, an actual argument with reasoning and/or evidence (preferably, both) would be better than a your personal "guarantee".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article " In 26 statements of " contemplated relief " contained in its complaint , the FTC described what Intel 's must do and not do to preserve competition .
" Right , because when I think of people who know how to run a business ( ya know , an entity with 10 trillion dollars in debt ) , I think of the Federal government .
" Preserving competition " , which is what the FTC is saying what must be done to do , and " running a business " are distinctly different , and often opposed , goals .
Someone running a business wants to eliminate their competition , not preserve it.Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10 \ % ( or 17 \ % real unemployement ) .
Your personal guarantee might be worth something for that proposition if you had the capacity and a legally binding obligation to repay the $ 700 billion if IBM failed to deliver .
But even then , it would be an inducement to try the experiment by mitigating the cost if you were wrong , not a basis for believeing the claim that you make .
If you want people to believe that claim , an actual argument with reasoning and/or evidence ( preferably , both ) would be better than a your personal " guarantee " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article "In 26 statements of "contemplated relief" contained in its complaint, the FTC described what Intel's must do and not do to preserve competition.
"Right, because when I think of people who know how to run a business (ya know, an entity with 10 trillion dollars in debt), I think of the Federal government.
"Preserving competition", which is what the FTC is saying what must be done to do, and "running a business" are distinctly different, and often opposed, goals.
Someone running a business wants to eliminate their competition, not preserve it.Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10\% (or 17\% real unemployement).
Your personal guarantee might be worth something for that proposition if you had the capacity and a legally binding obligation to repay the $700 billion if IBM failed to deliver.
But even then, it would be an inducement to try the experiment by mitigating the cost if you were wrong, not a basis for believeing the claim that you make.
If you want people to believe that claim, an actual argument with reasoning and/or evidence (preferably, both) would be better than a your personal "guarantee".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782456</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263586740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Athlon was never king of shit. They were unreliable and hot chips, allbeit cheap ones. They have some kind of romantic relationship with PC gamers from that era who built PCs to brag and whine on forums, nothing more.</p><p>The Operton was king of computation until Intel's cross licensing gave them Quick Path and removed the FSB. Nehalem is definitely king now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Athlon was never king of shit .
They were unreliable and hot chips , allbeit cheap ones .
They have some kind of romantic relationship with PC gamers from that era who built PCs to brag and whine on forums , nothing more.The Operton was king of computation until Intel 's cross licensing gave them Quick Path and removed the FSB .
Nehalem is definitely king now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Athlon was never king of shit.
They were unreliable and hot chips, allbeit cheap ones.
They have some kind of romantic relationship with PC gamers from that era who built PCs to brag and whine on forums, nothing more.The Operton was king of computation until Intel's cross licensing gave them Quick Path and removed the FSB.
Nehalem is definitely king now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781754</id>
	<title>Re:Government is best at deciding about the econom</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1263583800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10\% (or 17\% real unemployement).</p></div><p>In India, maybe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10 \ % ( or 17 \ % real unemployement ) .In India , maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give IBM 700 billion dollars and I guarantee that the unemployment would be well below 10\% (or 17\% real unemployement).In India, maybe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30785322</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263556860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Starbucks charge you more for Starbucks coffee if you sometimes buy 7-Eleven coffee? And do you have some customers which insist that you provide Starbucks coffee?  If Starbucks tried that, you can bet they'd be in trouble too.</p><p>The problem with smart-alecks who come up with these so-called analogies is that they don't bother to understand the actual situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Starbucks charge you more for Starbucks coffee if you sometimes buy 7-Eleven coffee ?
And do you have some customers which insist that you provide Starbucks coffee ?
If Starbucks tried that , you can bet they 'd be in trouble too.The problem with smart-alecks who come up with these so-called analogies is that they do n't bother to understand the actual situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Starbucks charge you more for Starbucks coffee if you sometimes buy 7-Eleven coffee?
And do you have some customers which insist that you provide Starbucks coffee?
If Starbucks tried that, you can bet they'd be in trouble too.The problem with smart-alecks who come up with these so-called analogies is that they don't bother to understand the actual situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30786318</id>
	<title>What they did to Transmeta and IBM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263563460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was at Transmeta, we were killing ourselves to get the Crusoe into an IBM Thinkpad.  It was going really well, and the apparent design win was awesome news, because when you get a "design win" (your chip used in a product) with IBM, it's a big rubber stamp on your forehead that says "SAFE VENDOR," and a lot more business tends to flow your way.</p><p>This is secondhand, but we were told that what killed the deal is that Intel found out about the impending design win, then called up IBM and threatened to deprioritize shipments of their zillions of Intel chips to IBM if they didn't give Crusoe the boot.  This would have hurt a huge portion of IBM's business.</p><p>I was just an engineer, so I don't know if this was for real or just an exec blowing sunshine up our asses, but I believe it.  I had heard years earlier directly from the horse's mouth that AMD was spending $40M/year just to defend itself from Intel lawsuits, many of them clearly designed to just overburden the company with a mountain of legal work.</p><p>I think Intel is a really impressive company that does incredible engineering work, but I feel they have crossed ethical lines several times.  Frankly, we make Microsoft out to be the bad guy, but I think they're just as inept at being bad guys as they are at software development, so it's easier to catch them in the act.  I think Intel has been the real creep, but they're just better at it, so we don't notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was at Transmeta , we were killing ourselves to get the Crusoe into an IBM Thinkpad .
It was going really well , and the apparent design win was awesome news , because when you get a " design win " ( your chip used in a product ) with IBM , it 's a big rubber stamp on your forehead that says " SAFE VENDOR , " and a lot more business tends to flow your way.This is secondhand , but we were told that what killed the deal is that Intel found out about the impending design win , then called up IBM and threatened to deprioritize shipments of their zillions of Intel chips to IBM if they did n't give Crusoe the boot .
This would have hurt a huge portion of IBM 's business.I was just an engineer , so I do n't know if this was for real or just an exec blowing sunshine up our asses , but I believe it .
I had heard years earlier directly from the horse 's mouth that AMD was spending $ 40M/year just to defend itself from Intel lawsuits , many of them clearly designed to just overburden the company with a mountain of legal work.I think Intel is a really impressive company that does incredible engineering work , but I feel they have crossed ethical lines several times .
Frankly , we make Microsoft out to be the bad guy , but I think they 're just as inept at being bad guys as they are at software development , so it 's easier to catch them in the act .
I think Intel has been the real creep , but they 're just better at it , so we do n't notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was at Transmeta, we were killing ourselves to get the Crusoe into an IBM Thinkpad.
It was going really well, and the apparent design win was awesome news, because when you get a "design win" (your chip used in a product) with IBM, it's a big rubber stamp on your forehead that says "SAFE VENDOR," and a lot more business tends to flow your way.This is secondhand, but we were told that what killed the deal is that Intel found out about the impending design win, then called up IBM and threatened to deprioritize shipments of their zillions of Intel chips to IBM if they didn't give Crusoe the boot.
This would have hurt a huge portion of IBM's business.I was just an engineer, so I don't know if this was for real or just an exec blowing sunshine up our asses, but I believe it.
I had heard years earlier directly from the horse's mouth that AMD was spending $40M/year just to defend itself from Intel lawsuits, many of them clearly designed to just overburden the company with a mountain of legal work.I think Intel is a really impressive company that does incredible engineering work, but I feel they have crossed ethical lines several times.
Frankly, we make Microsoft out to be the bad guy, but I think they're just as inept at being bad guys as they are at software development, so it's easier to catch them in the act.
I think Intel has been the real creep, but they're just better at it, so we don't notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782172</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1263585480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case takes place looong before the Core 2 Duos.  You are dead-on about one thing: For a while, Athlon was the king - technologically.  Yet they never could get a major vendor to ship their chips.  This is because Intel used anti-competitive practices to lock-out AMD.  The vendor contracts with Intel limited the percentage of machines they could ship with AMD chips.</p><p>The FTC is not telling Intel to degrade their products.  They are telling them not to make monopolistic contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case takes place looong before the Core 2 Duos .
You are dead-on about one thing : For a while , Athlon was the king - technologically .
Yet they never could get a major vendor to ship their chips .
This is because Intel used anti-competitive practices to lock-out AMD .
The vendor contracts with Intel limited the percentage of machines they could ship with AMD chips.The FTC is not telling Intel to degrade their products .
They are telling them not to make monopolistic contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case takes place looong before the Core 2 Duos.
You are dead-on about one thing: For a while, Athlon was the king - technologically.
Yet they never could get a major vendor to ship their chips.
This is because Intel used anti-competitive practices to lock-out AMD.
The vendor contracts with Intel limited the percentage of machines they could ship with AMD chips.The FTC is not telling Intel to degrade their products.
They are telling them not to make monopolistic contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580</id>
	<title>The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The general problem Intel has is that at a default level even before any of the facts are in, chip-making is an area where anti-trust concerns make a lot of sense, more so than they necessary do in other areas (such as software). Chip-making has massive initial start-up cost. Thus, it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market. Thus, even if Intel shows that they haven't actively abused their role (such as the FTC's claims about Intel threatening buyers about loss of discounts in event of them buying from competitors) there might still be a strong case for some form of intervention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The general problem Intel has is that at a default level even before any of the facts are in , chip-making is an area where anti-trust concerns make a lot of sense , more so than they necessary do in other areas ( such as software ) .
Chip-making has massive initial start-up cost .
Thus , it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market .
Thus , even if Intel shows that they have n't actively abused their role ( such as the FTC 's claims about Intel threatening buyers about loss of discounts in event of them buying from competitors ) there might still be a strong case for some form of intervention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general problem Intel has is that at a default level even before any of the facts are in, chip-making is an area where anti-trust concerns make a lot of sense, more so than they necessary do in other areas (such as software).
Chip-making has massive initial start-up cost.
Thus, it is like the classic economic example of the steel mill where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the market.
Thus, even if Intel shows that they haven't actively abused their role (such as the FTC's claims about Intel threatening buyers about loss of discounts in event of them buying from competitors) there might still be a strong case for some form of intervention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30787882</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1263578460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what is ultimately screwed Intel is the fact that they paid their OEMs to NOT use any AMD chips, and made it clear that any discounts would go bye bye if so much as a single AMD chip went out the door. I wish I could find the link, but as another poster says Intel puff pieces dominate Google right now.</p><p>But you can find proof of it probably in your very own home. Remember back five years ago, when Intel was running Netburst, which was a pig for power, ran like a space heater, and was slower than just about every AMD chip made? While AMD wasn't the truly insane "bang for the buck" it is now, their chips were still quite affordable and the benchmarks kicked every single offering Intel had, yet AMD didn't gain ground. Why? With OEMs having bullet points to stick on the box is a BIG plus, and having the benchmark leaders helps to sell boxes. Not to mention the lower power requirements means less powerful PSUs, and fans, and all that adds to the bottom line. Yet they STILL didn't gain. Why?</p><p>Because Intel <a href="http://www.widowpc.com/2005/06/intel\_cocaine\_d.php" title="widowpc.com"> <strong>paid off the OEMs</strong> </a> [widowpc.com] that's why. I would point out this quote from an the article as an example, "Its executives agreed that Intel's financial inducements amounted to "cocaine," but said they were hooked because re-engaging with AMD would jeopardize Intel market development funds estimated to be worth $25 (million)-$30 million per quarter."</p><p>

And THAT is what is gonna come back to bite them in the ass, just as it did MSFT. Giving discount to volume customers is one thing, tying those discounts to cutting your competitors completely out of the market is another. I'm sorry but they need to be busted. Being tough in the market is one thing, paying off your partners in backroom deals to screw the other guy is antitrust bait. Hopefully Intel will be stopped from pulling this crap in the future, and since AMD used a good portion of their 1.25 Billion dollar settlement from Intel (which if there wasn't any skeletons about to fall out the closet I doubt Intel would have shelled out the cash) to pay off their ATI debts I can only hope AMD comes out better so there is real competition. Because I don't know about you, but I have no desire to go back to Intel being the only game in town. I like being able to build a nice quad for less than $750, thanks ever so much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what is ultimately screwed Intel is the fact that they paid their OEMs to NOT use any AMD chips , and made it clear that any discounts would go bye bye if so much as a single AMD chip went out the door .
I wish I could find the link , but as another poster says Intel puff pieces dominate Google right now.But you can find proof of it probably in your very own home .
Remember back five years ago , when Intel was running Netburst , which was a pig for power , ran like a space heater , and was slower than just about every AMD chip made ?
While AMD was n't the truly insane " bang for the buck " it is now , their chips were still quite affordable and the benchmarks kicked every single offering Intel had , yet AMD did n't gain ground .
Why ? With OEMs having bullet points to stick on the box is a BIG plus , and having the benchmark leaders helps to sell boxes .
Not to mention the lower power requirements means less powerful PSUs , and fans , and all that adds to the bottom line .
Yet they STILL did n't gain .
Why ? Because Intel paid off the OEMs [ widowpc.com ] that 's why .
I would point out this quote from an the article as an example , " Its executives agreed that Intel 's financial inducements amounted to " cocaine , " but said they were hooked because re-engaging with AMD would jeopardize Intel market development funds estimated to be worth $ 25 ( million ) - $ 30 million per quarter .
" And THAT is what is gon na come back to bite them in the ass , just as it did MSFT .
Giving discount to volume customers is one thing , tying those discounts to cutting your competitors completely out of the market is another .
I 'm sorry but they need to be busted .
Being tough in the market is one thing , paying off your partners in backroom deals to screw the other guy is antitrust bait .
Hopefully Intel will be stopped from pulling this crap in the future , and since AMD used a good portion of their 1.25 Billion dollar settlement from Intel ( which if there was n't any skeletons about to fall out the closet I doubt Intel would have shelled out the cash ) to pay off their ATI debts I can only hope AMD comes out better so there is real competition .
Because I do n't know about you , but I have no desire to go back to Intel being the only game in town .
I like being able to build a nice quad for less than $ 750 , thanks ever so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what is ultimately screwed Intel is the fact that they paid their OEMs to NOT use any AMD chips, and made it clear that any discounts would go bye bye if so much as a single AMD chip went out the door.
I wish I could find the link, but as another poster says Intel puff pieces dominate Google right now.But you can find proof of it probably in your very own home.
Remember back five years ago, when Intel was running Netburst, which was a pig for power, ran like a space heater, and was slower than just about every AMD chip made?
While AMD wasn't the truly insane "bang for the buck" it is now, their chips were still quite affordable and the benchmarks kicked every single offering Intel had, yet AMD didn't gain ground.
Why? With OEMs having bullet points to stick on the box is a BIG plus, and having the benchmark leaders helps to sell boxes.
Not to mention the lower power requirements means less powerful PSUs, and fans, and all that adds to the bottom line.
Yet they STILL didn't gain.
Why?Because Intel  paid off the OEMs  [widowpc.com] that's why.
I would point out this quote from an the article as an example, "Its executives agreed that Intel's financial inducements amounted to "cocaine," but said they were hooked because re-engaging with AMD would jeopardize Intel market development funds estimated to be worth $25 (million)-$30 million per quarter.
"

And THAT is what is gonna come back to bite them in the ass, just as it did MSFT.
Giving discount to volume customers is one thing, tying those discounts to cutting your competitors completely out of the market is another.
I'm sorry but they need to be busted.
Being tough in the market is one thing, paying off your partners in backroom deals to screw the other guy is antitrust bait.
Hopefully Intel will be stopped from pulling this crap in the future, and since AMD used a good portion of their 1.25 Billion dollar settlement from Intel (which if there wasn't any skeletons about to fall out the closet I doubt Intel would have shelled out the cash) to pay off their ATI debts I can only hope AMD comes out better so there is real competition.
Because I don't know about you, but I have no desire to go back to Intel being the only game in town.
I like being able to build a nice quad for less than $750, thanks ever so much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30784092</id>
	<title>What would happen...</title>
	<author>JackPepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263550740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if AMD went out of business and Intel cornered the market? How does that affect me as a consumer?
<br>Somebody please explain that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if AMD went out of business and Intel cornered the market ?
How does that affect me as a consumer ?
Somebody please explain that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if AMD went out of business and Intel cornered the market?
How does that affect me as a consumer?
Somebody please explain that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30795578</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1263657240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>personally though it doesn't bother me too much since AMD is for the most part a legitimate competitor</i><br>For the moment they are still a player at the low-midrange. The trouble is that stuff makes relatively little money. Most of intels competitors in the PC processor market have been gradually killed off because of both the huge economies of scale intel has and the fact that intel could make the big margins on the high end stuff.</p><p>AMD pulled a rabbit out of the hat (opteron/athlon64) while intel was slumbering (p4/itanium) but now intel have got thier act together (core2/nahelm) I just don't see how amd/globalfoundries (afaict despite the split the two companies are still heavilly dependent on each other) can keep going much longer.</p><p>I hope i'm wrong but I just can't see a bright future for AMD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>personally though it does n't bother me too much since AMD is for the most part a legitimate competitorFor the moment they are still a player at the low-midrange .
The trouble is that stuff makes relatively little money .
Most of intels competitors in the PC processor market have been gradually killed off because of both the huge economies of scale intel has and the fact that intel could make the big margins on the high end stuff.AMD pulled a rabbit out of the hat ( opteron/athlon64 ) while intel was slumbering ( p4/itanium ) but now intel have got thier act together ( core2/nahelm ) I just do n't see how amd/globalfoundries ( afaict despite the split the two companies are still heavilly dependent on each other ) can keep going much longer.I hope i 'm wrong but I just ca n't see a bright future for AMD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>personally though it doesn't bother me too much since AMD is for the most part a legitimate competitorFor the moment they are still a player at the low-midrange.
The trouble is that stuff makes relatively little money.
Most of intels competitors in the PC processor market have been gradually killed off because of both the huge economies of scale intel has and the fact that intel could make the big margins on the high end stuff.AMD pulled a rabbit out of the hat (opteron/athlon64) while intel was slumbering (p4/itanium) but now intel have got thier act together (core2/nahelm) I just don't see how amd/globalfoundries (afaict despite the split the two companies are still heavilly dependent on each other) can keep going much longer.I hope i'm wrong but I just can't see a bright future for AMD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783322</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263547500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Interesting, and I had to put away my mod points and respond</p><p>Finally someone that gets the big picture, and thinks this whole intel debate is really another plow by FTC to generate its own revenue...seeing as imo intel has done nothnig wrong...and amd sucks the big one.</p><p>I wish I too had kept some mod points, but alas, I can only give you my imaginary ones....<br>consider yourself +5 underated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Interesting , and I had to put away my mod points and respondFinally someone that gets the big picture , and thinks this whole intel debate is really another plow by FTC to generate its own revenue...seeing as imo intel has done nothnig wrong...and amd sucks the big one.I wish I too had kept some mod points , but alas , I can only give you my imaginary ones....consider yourself + 5 underated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Interesting, and I had to put away my mod points and respondFinally someone that gets the big picture, and thinks this whole intel debate is really another plow by FTC to generate its own revenue...seeing as imo intel has done nothnig wrong...and amd sucks the big one.I wish I too had kept some mod points, but alas, I can only give you my imaginary ones....consider yourself +5 underated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783854</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>sublimemm</author>
	<datestamp>1263549780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You make it seem like AMD has always been fabless.

They just finished their spinoff of their foundries and did so because they couldn't afford to run them anymore. Which pretty much makes your point irrelevant. Also, investors and followers of AMD have held the move up as a great move for saving the company from bankruptcy (or more likely, acquisition from IBM).

Futhermore, you failed to mention even one word of why the FTC brought the case about in the first place. Intel selling their chips at cost or below cost to push AMD out of the market. Which AMD has sued successfully over (Intel settled and agreed to pay $1 billion and agree not to sue about their splitting off their foundries).

But yeah you're right, the FTC has no case and Intel is a perfect shining example of how to NOT violate antitrust laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it seem like AMD has always been fabless .
They just finished their spinoff of their foundries and did so because they could n't afford to run them anymore .
Which pretty much makes your point irrelevant .
Also , investors and followers of AMD have held the move up as a great move for saving the company from bankruptcy ( or more likely , acquisition from IBM ) .
Futhermore , you failed to mention even one word of why the FTC brought the case about in the first place .
Intel selling their chips at cost or below cost to push AMD out of the market .
Which AMD has sued successfully over ( Intel settled and agreed to pay $ 1 billion and agree not to sue about their splitting off their foundries ) .
But yeah you 're right , the FTC has no case and Intel is a perfect shining example of how to NOT violate antitrust laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it seem like AMD has always been fabless.
They just finished their spinoff of their foundries and did so because they couldn't afford to run them anymore.
Which pretty much makes your point irrelevant.
Also, investors and followers of AMD have held the move up as a great move for saving the company from bankruptcy (or more likely, acquisition from IBM).
Futhermore, you failed to mention even one word of why the FTC brought the case about in the first place.
Intel selling their chips at cost or below cost to push AMD out of the market.
Which AMD has sued successfully over (Intel settled and agreed to pay $1 billion and agree not to sue about their splitting off their foundries).
But yeah you're right, the FTC has no case and Intel is a perfect shining example of how to NOT violate antitrust laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781924</id>
	<title>Re:I don't quite get it...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263584400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's Intel's business practices during the time (and before) Athlon was "king of the world" that are at issue.  They fed companies "cooperative marketing" funds (read cash handouts and sweetheart pricing deals) via the "Intel Inside" program that were not based on how much Intel product they moved, but rather on them <i>not</i> selling AMD parts.  There were companies that <i>wanted</i> to sell more AMD, but couldn't because with the amount of money Intel was giving them, it simply didn't make sense.  They would have been crushed by competitors who were willing to play ball with Intel.</p><p>Thus was Athlon's marketshare artificially limited, which can be seen as a cause of AMD later falling behind.  There was a brief period in the K8 days where AMD was fab capacity limited, but this too is because AMD had not secured enough revenue from Athlon to build as aggressively as they would have otherwise.</p><p>As usual, legal entities like the FTC move slowly, and the issues they actually act upon are thus well in the past.  Not that Intel stopped engaging in these practices until (possibly) very recently, when other trade organizations around the globe started hammering them and AMD's lawsuit against them was settled in AMD's favor.  It's just understandably harder to see the business practice issues when Intel's products are also superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's Intel 's business practices during the time ( and before ) Athlon was " king of the world " that are at issue .
They fed companies " cooperative marketing " funds ( read cash handouts and sweetheart pricing deals ) via the " Intel Inside " program that were not based on how much Intel product they moved , but rather on them not selling AMD parts .
There were companies that wanted to sell more AMD , but could n't because with the amount of money Intel was giving them , it simply did n't make sense .
They would have been crushed by competitors who were willing to play ball with Intel.Thus was Athlon 's marketshare artificially limited , which can be seen as a cause of AMD later falling behind .
There was a brief period in the K8 days where AMD was fab capacity limited , but this too is because AMD had not secured enough revenue from Athlon to build as aggressively as they would have otherwise.As usual , legal entities like the FTC move slowly , and the issues they actually act upon are thus well in the past .
Not that Intel stopped engaging in these practices until ( possibly ) very recently , when other trade organizations around the globe started hammering them and AMD 's lawsuit against them was settled in AMD 's favor .
It 's just understandably harder to see the business practice issues when Intel 's products are also superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's Intel's business practices during the time (and before) Athlon was "king of the world" that are at issue.
They fed companies "cooperative marketing" funds (read cash handouts and sweetheart pricing deals) via the "Intel Inside" program that were not based on how much Intel product they moved, but rather on them not selling AMD parts.
There were companies that wanted to sell more AMD, but couldn't because with the amount of money Intel was giving them, it simply didn't make sense.
They would have been crushed by competitors who were willing to play ball with Intel.Thus was Athlon's marketshare artificially limited, which can be seen as a cause of AMD later falling behind.
There was a brief period in the K8 days where AMD was fab capacity limited, but this too is because AMD had not secured enough revenue from Athlon to build as aggressively as they would have otherwise.As usual, legal entities like the FTC move slowly, and the issues they actually act upon are thus well in the past.
Not that Intel stopped engaging in these practices until (possibly) very recently, when other trade organizations around the globe started hammering them and AMD's lawsuit against them was settled in AMD's favor.
It's just understandably harder to see the business practice issues when Intel's products are also superior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30790018</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1263654300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly"</p><p><b>Completely and totally wrong.   </b>   A natural monopoly relates to physical space where, for example, you can't have 4 or 5 companies supplying water to your house, because there's not enough room to bury 5 sets of pipes.  That physical restriction imposed by NATURE means there can only be 1 company serving you with water.  Same applies with natural gas and electricity.</p><p>CPUs have no restriction imposed by nature.  Just as we have ~100 car companies around the world, and ~100 different brands of computer hardware manufacturers, we could easily have ~100 CPU manufacturers.  There's no restriction imposed by Mother Nature therefore Intel's monopoly is NOT a natural monopoly.</p><p>The monopoly exists for other reasons, mainly government copyright/patent enforcement.  It's a Man-made monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; CPU manufacturing is what is known as a " natural monopoly " Completely and totally wrong .
A natural monopoly relates to physical space where , for example , you ca n't have 4 or 5 companies supplying water to your house , because there 's not enough room to bury 5 sets of pipes .
That physical restriction imposed by NATURE means there can only be 1 company serving you with water .
Same applies with natural gas and electricity.CPUs have no restriction imposed by nature .
Just as we have ~ 100 car companies around the world , and ~ 100 different brands of computer hardware manufacturers , we could easily have ~ 100 CPU manufacturers .
There 's no restriction imposed by Mother Nature therefore Intel 's monopoly is NOT a natural monopoly.The monopoly exists for other reasons , mainly government copyright/patent enforcement .
It 's a Man-made monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly"Completely and totally wrong.
A natural monopoly relates to physical space where, for example, you can't have 4 or 5 companies supplying water to your house, because there's not enough room to bury 5 sets of pipes.
That physical restriction imposed by NATURE means there can only be 1 company serving you with water.
Same applies with natural gas and electricity.CPUs have no restriction imposed by nature.
Just as we have ~100 car companies around the world, and ~100 different brands of computer hardware manufacturers, we could easily have ~100 CPU manufacturers.
There's no restriction imposed by Mother Nature therefore Intel's monopoly is NOT a natural monopoly.The monopoly exists for other reasons, mainly government copyright/patent enforcement.
It's a Man-made monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783844</id>
	<title>Re:The general problem Intel has</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of the Fabs Intel doesn't sued are own wholly or proportional by Intel? Can Intel uses it's market to influence pricing at other Fabs?</p><p>Also, Intel could by up critical parts need for a fab in order to delay building a new one which would severely impact AMDs market window for a product.</p><p>I don't know the answer, but those are some very good reason the FTC would have a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of the Fabs Intel does n't sued are own wholly or proportional by Intel ?
Can Intel uses it 's market to influence pricing at other Fabs ? Also , Intel could by up critical parts need for a fab in order to delay building a new one which would severely impact AMDs market window for a product.I do n't know the answer , but those are some very good reason the FTC would have a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of the Fabs Intel doesn't sued are own wholly or proportional by Intel?
Can Intel uses it's market to influence pricing at other Fabs?Also, Intel could by up critical parts need for a fab in order to delay building a new one which would severely impact AMDs market window for a product.I don't know the answer, but those are some very good reason the FTC would have a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30789908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30785202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30787882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30790018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30789922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30784060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30785322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30795578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1649234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1649234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1649234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30785202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30790018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30795578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30787882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783870
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30785322
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30789922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30789908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1649234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1649234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30784060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30782172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30783332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1649234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30781450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1649234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1649234.30784092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
