[xiphias2]

,,The plaintiffs claimed the three companies reduced D-RAM supply under the pretext of transitioning to high-bandwidth memory (HBM). "The D-RAM oligopoly companies systematically coordinated the shift to HBM and the discontinuation of DDR3 and DDR4," they said. They added that Apple's recent sweeping product price increases were the trigger for the lawsuit.''

How can they do price fixing and discontinuing a product at the same time? It just looks like some companies are angry that AI / VC industry is outpricing them.

[dcrazy]

> An agreement to restrict production, sales, or output is just as illegal as direct price fixing, because reducing the supply of a product or service drives up its price. For example, the FTC challenged an agreement among competing oil importers to restrict the supply of lubricants by refusing to import or sell those products in Puerto Rico. The competitors were seeking to pressure the legislature to repeal an environmental deposit fee on lubricants, and warned of lubricant shortages and higher prices.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

[xiphias2]

But Micron didn't restrict the output: it stopped producing DDR2-3-4 completely, so it's not profiting from DDR customers at all.

[dcrazy]

So they restricted it to zero?

Not saying I agree with the plaintiffs.

[Danox]

People have a tendency to get upset when someone waves a future IOU intent order from another buyer in front of you, one that isn’t taking delivery anytime soon and then proceeds to tell you you must pay more…

[sysguest]

hmm maybe the plaintiff should sue nvidia?