Comments on: Intel’s “ridiculous antitrust defense” http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/ Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:03:10 -0800 hourly 1 By: Sacred Ego » Around the Web http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-2220 Sacred Ego » Around the Web Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:33:21 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-2220 [...] Intel’s “ridiculous antitrust defense” Apparently, Intel is daring to defend the anti-trust charges leveled at them by the EU in ways that have the editorial staff at the New York Times, among others, seeing red. What is their supposedly egregious defense? As Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center writes: It is the assertion that Intel, a corporation, has a right to the same due process of law that individuals have. Intel’s argument, as summarized by the Times, is that corporations “are entitled to the due process rights that European human rights law grants in criminal cases to ensure that the accused—usually powerless individuals—are not steamrollered by the overwhelming power of the state.” Those due process rights were violated, Intel alleges, by the European Commission, which “unfairly plays the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury.” [...] [...] Intel’s “ridiculous antitrust defense” Apparently, Intel is daring to defend the anti-trust charges leveled at them by the EU in ways that have the editorial staff at the New York Times, among others, seeing red. What is their supposedly egregious defense? As Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center writes: It is the assertion that Intel, a corporation, has a right to the same due process of law that individuals have. Intel’s argument, as summarized by the Times, is that corporations “are entitled to the due process rights that European human rights law grants in criminal cases to ensure that the accused—usually powerless individuals—are not steamrollered by the overwhelming power of the state.” Those due process rights were violated, Intel alleges, by the European Commission, which “unfairly plays the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury.” [...]

]]> By: Hank http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1720 Hank Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:59:07 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1720 I hardly think you're being rational concerning this issue. The idea that a pre-organized group of individuals operating under a collective entity with focused interests and (massive) collective resources is in any way similar to a single person with no resources or connections (business or political) is absurd. Your dogmatic approach, while I'm sure fluffed with good intentions, uses very poor logic and reason. If physical force is the criteria for determining power, how would anyone be categorized as having any "power" when compared to any government with a military? Furthermore, would a man with a gun have more "power" than Intel? To imply that several thousand people with huge resources are as powerless as a lone man/woman is stupid. It's not only illogical but offensive to the integrity and brilliance that Intel has employed as a chipmaker. Would Dagney Taggart say that she was powerless? Hank Rearden? I think not. Great logic James.. er I mean, Tom. I hardly think you’re being rational concerning this issue. The idea that a pre-organized group of individuals operating under a collective entity with focused interests and (massive) collective resources is in any way similar to a single person with no resources or connections (business or political) is absurd. Your dogmatic approach, while I’m sure fluffed with good intentions, uses very poor logic and reason. If physical force is the criteria for determining power, how would anyone be categorized as having any “power” when compared to any government with a military? Furthermore, would a man with a gun have more “power” than Intel?

To imply that several thousand people with huge resources are as powerless as a lone man/woman is stupid. It’s not only illogical but offensive to the integrity and brilliance that Intel has employed as a chipmaker. Would Dagney Taggart say that she was powerless? Hank Rearden? I think not.

Great logic James.. er I mean, Tom.

]]> By: John Sebastian http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1719 John Sebastian Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:03:24 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1719 The fatal flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy is her total belief that "pure selfishness" is a good characteristic to embrace. Once we begin to believe(and we may have already reached this point)that we are not our brother's(and sister's) keepers, all is lost. The fatal flaw in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is her total belief that “pure selfishness” is a good characteristic to embrace.
Once we begin to believe(and we may have already reached this point)that we are not our brother’s(and sister’s) keepers, all is lost.

]]> By: Twitted by davidjhorn http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1691 Twitted by davidjhorn Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:23:58 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1691 [...] This post was Twitted by davidjhorn [...] [...] This post was Twitted by davidjhorn [...]

]]> By: Michael Fitzgibbon http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1680 Michael Fitzgibbon Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:38:53 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1680 The EU's case against Intel is unconscionable. I'm also angered by the EU's ban on Canadian seal products - an unenlightened move based on hysteria, penalizing the very segment of society they claim to protect. And while the state continues to erode the rights of corporations, it continues to increase corporate liability and burden. I'm also willing to bet the people who criticize corporate profits and support state initiatives that weaken those profits then demand from their investment and 401(k) managers returns on equity that their own collectivist ideas have effectively made impossible. It all amounts to an impossible squeeze being put upon corporations, who are guilty of nothing more than creating the wealth upon which our society thrives. The EU’s case against Intel is unconscionable. I’m also angered by the EU’s ban on Canadian seal products – an unenlightened move based on hysteria, penalizing the very segment of society they claim to protect. And while the state continues to erode the rights of corporations, it continues to increase corporate liability and burden. I’m also willing to bet the people who criticize corporate profits and support state initiatives that weaken those profits then demand from their investment and 401(k) managers returns on equity that their own collectivist ideas have effectively made impossible. It all amounts to an impossible squeeze being put upon corporations, who are guilty of nothing more than creating the wealth upon which our society thrives.

]]> By: John and Ansley » Blog Archive » Around the Web http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1679 John and Ansley » Blog Archive » Around the Web Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:08:16 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1679 [...] Intel’s “ridiculous antitrust defense” Apparently, Intel is daring to defend the anti-trust charges leveled at them by the EU in ways that have the editorial staff at the New York Times, among others, seeing red. What is their supposedly egregious defense? As Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center writes: It is the assertion that Intel, a corporation, has a right to the same due process of law that individuals have. Intel’s argument, as summarized by the Times, is that corporations “are entitled to the due process rights that European human rights law grants in criminal cases to ensure that the accused—usually powerless individuals—are not steamrollered by the overwhelming power of the state.” Those due process rights were violated, Intel alleges, by the European Commission, which “unfairly plays the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury.” [...] [...] Intel’s “ridiculous antitrust defense” Apparently, Intel is daring to defend the anti-trust charges leveled at them by the EU in ways that have the editorial staff at the New York Times, among others, seeing red. What is their supposedly egregious defense? As Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center writes: It is the assertion that Intel, a corporation, has a right to the same due process of law that individuals have. Intel’s argument, as summarized by the Times, is that corporations “are entitled to the due process rights that European human rights law grants in criminal cases to ensure that the accused—usually powerless individuals—are not steamrollered by the overwhelming power of the state.” Those due process rights were violated, Intel alleges, by the European Commission, which “unfairly plays the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury.” [...]

]]> By: Bill Peltz http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1677 Bill Peltz Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:36:27 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1677 I believe that it's incorrect to describe corporations as "nothing but voluntary contractual relations among individual shareholders". The corporation is an independent entity chartered by government, with certain rights, privileges, and obligations. My stockbrokerage clients made no delegation of their individual rights to any company whose stock they bought. Although the companies had a fiduciary responsibility to them, they had next to no ability to delegate, direct, or influence "their" company's decisions. What we conceive of as "God-given human rights" belong, inalienably, to "God-created human beings". Corporations, as "Government-created fictive beings", get only "Government-given commercial rights" which are ultimately, and with appropriate and orderly due process, as related to their charters and to legislation, alienable. Or so it seems to me. What say you? I believe that it’s incorrect to describe corporations as “nothing but voluntary contractual relations among individual shareholders”. The corporation is an independent entity chartered by government, with certain rights, privileges, and obligations. My stockbrokerage clients made no delegation of their individual rights to any company whose stock they bought. Although the companies had a fiduciary responsibility to them, they had next to no ability to delegate, direct, or influence “their” company’s decisions.

What we conceive of as “God-given human rights” belong, inalienably, to “God-created human beings”. Corporations, as “Government-created fictive beings”, get only “Government-given commercial rights” which are ultimately, and with appropriate and orderly due process, as related to their charters and to legislation, alienable.

Or so it seems to me. What say you?

]]> By: JackDoitCrawford http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1669 JackDoitCrawford Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:41:00 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1669 I thought at first that you thought Intel's defense WAS, in fact, ridiculous. Perhaps a better name for the article would be Intel's Anti-Trust Defense is not "Ridiculous." I thought at first that you thought Intel’s defense WAS, in fact, ridiculous. Perhaps a better name for the article would be Intel’s Anti-Trust Defense is not “Ridiculous.”

]]> By: Carl Svanberg http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1666 Carl Svanberg Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:24:18 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1666 Great analysis Thomas Bowden. Ha! I love to see how people from the other side of the Atlantic come to the exact same conclusion as me! :-) You probably do not know it, but in August I wrote a piece on my Swedish blog, were I said, essentially the exact same thing. :-) Check it out: http://svanberg.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/new-york-times-vs-intels-rattigheter/ Use translate.google.com if you want to translate it. The translation function is pretty awful, but it should give you a general idea. PS: I love this blog, this is my favorite blog. Please tell the other guys running this blog from me. Great analysis Thomas Bowden. Ha! I love to see how people from the other side of the Atlantic come to the exact same conclusion as me! :-) You probably do not know it, but in August I wrote a piece on my Swedish blog, were I said, essentially the exact same thing. :-)

Check it out: http://svanberg.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/new-york-times-vs-intels-rattigheter/

Use translate.google.com if you want to translate it. The translation function is pretty awful, but it should give you a general idea.

PS: I love this blog, this is my favorite blog. Please tell the other guys running this blog from me.

]]> By: En intressant och bekant analys « Förnuftets kalla och oresonliga röst http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/intels-ridiculous-antitrust-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-1665 En intressant och bekant analys « Förnuftets kalla och oresonliga röst Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:20:38 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3921#comment-1665 [...] intressant och bekant analys Thomas Bowden vid ARI har en intressant analys av EU:s övergrepp på Intels rättigheter. Men på något sätt känns denna analys ganska bekant. Jag kan bara inte sätta fingret på vad [...] [...] intressant och bekant analys Thomas Bowden vid ARI har en intressant analys av EU:s övergrepp på Intels rättigheter. Men på något sätt känns denna analys ganska bekant. Jag kan bara inte sätta fingret på vad [...]

]]>