- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 10,842 (1.74/day)
- Location
- Austin Texas
System Name | stress-less |
---|---|
Processor | 9800X3D @ 5.42GHZ |
Motherboard | MSI PRO B650M-A Wifi |
Cooling | Thermalright Phantom Spirit EVO |
Memory | 64GB DDR5 6400 1:1 CL30-36-36-76 FCLK 2200 |
Video Card(s) | RTX 4090 FE |
Storage | 2TB WD SN850, 4TB WD SN850X |
Display(s) | Alienware 32" 4k 240hz OLED |
Case | Jonsbo Z20 |
Audio Device(s) | Yes |
Power Supply | Corsair SF750 |
Mouse | DeathadderV2 X Hyperspeed |
Keyboard | 65% HE Keyboard |
Software | Windows 11 |
Benchmark Scores | They're pretty good, nothing crazy. |
So if there was laws against Monopolistic Mergers, why hasn't Microsoft and Oil COmpanies been Blammed for it and then forced to divide into totally different companies- no parent-child companies, but equal ground companies that have no ties to each other.
Monopolistic Mergers are not allowed to occur. Microsoft never MERGED to become a monopoly, they became one due to ultracompetitive business practices, therefore a merger could have never been prevented since one never took place. OIL companies HAVE been split. Mobil, Exxon, Chevron (and e few others) now have no ties to each other. But they used to be one big company called Standard Oil - the biggest monopoly in history of monopolies. OPEC, on the other hand, is not under US jurisdiction, otherwise they would be guilty of price fixing, and would be disbanded.
My comment before is slightly incorrect and does not take into account all the legal technicalities associated with mergers. But if nVidia wants to continue trading on the US market, they would not be allowed to buy out AMD.
Last edited: