backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by BZDTemp.. on May 13 at 9:21 AM

Intel still maintains its innocence

Intel and Microsoft are two of the largest and most dominant companies in the technology industry. Both of the companies have also been accused of antitrust violations over the years and have at times been found guilty of the accusations.

Intel has been battling EU regulators over antitrust allegations claiming it abused it dominant market position to prevent its main rival, AMD, from gaining traction in the marketplace. The allegations claim that Intel was illegally paying computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products using AMD processors according to insiders close to the case.

Reuters reports that EU regulators are set to decide on Wednesday to fine Intel and order it to change its business practices. One EU executive claimed that Intel has practiced "naked restrictions" to competition in the market.

There is no indication at this time on how large the fine assessed against Intel might be; the largest fine ever assessed by the commission for abuse of a dominant position in the marketplace was the $655 million fine levied against Microsoft in March of 2004.

According to sources cited by Reuters, the EU commission is expected to rule that Intel committed two violations. One of the violations alleges that Intel paid computer makers to delay or outright scrap products using AMD processors. Intel is also said to offer other inducements to computer makers to get them to sell Intel only machines.

Intel allegedly set the percentages of its chips that PC makers had to use. NEC was told that 20% of its notebooks could use AMD CPUs according to sources. The source claimed that all Lenovo notebooks had to use Intel chips and many Dell products had to as well. HP is claimed to have been required to offer 95% of its notebooks with Intel processors. Intel had no comment on the claims and still maintains it did nothing wrong.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By crystal clear on 5/11/2009 11:15:57 AM , Rating: 4
Intel should respond by shutting down Intel Ireland & bring those 6000 jobs back to the USA.

As a matter of fact just anywhere in the EU not only Ireland.

Even Microsoft should do the same - bring thousands of jobs from the EU back to the USA.

Then maybe the EU will stop imposing these huge fines.




RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By majorpain on 5/11/2009 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 3
Or maybe all countries and companies should do that, or even more, all US companies should only work/buy/sell in the US...
Pretty sure US dont need anything from the rest of us minor % of the world...
/sarcasm


By crystal clear on 5/11/2009 7:20:12 PM , Rating: 1
If Intel was a Russian company,you would have recieved an even harsher response from PUTTIN.

Remember he cut off gas supplies to the E.U in Winter & brought the E.U. on its knees.

When the OPEC raised its oil prices to USD 100 + did they really care about the U.S. or its effects on economies all over the world.

If others have the right & the previlage to protect their interests,why not the USA.

Till today the U.S. is only exporting JOBS to other countries & importing their finished products.

The U.S. has to protect itself & its citizens first then the think about others.



RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By BZDTemp on 5/11/2009 1:56:35 PM , Rating: 3
Amazing how little thought that seems to go behind posting on the internet :-)

The EU is a market the size of the US if not bigger and you think US companies should get out of that market! Just because they are being force to practice their business without dirty tricks.

If you think the crisis in the US economy is bad now then just imagine what your ideas would do. What you suggest is not a tea party it is more shooting your self in the foot with both barrels before attempting a marathon.

If the US government was doing their job the EU would not have to get though with companies like Intel, Microsoft, Apple and more. Which btw. is no different from what EU is doing to any companies regardless of origin when they do not follow the laws.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By crystal clear on 5/11/2009 7:33:35 PM , Rating: 3
I have not said "dont sell to the E.U or get out of the E.U. market".

I said bring those JOBS back to the USA.

If you want companies of the size & the likes of Intel/Microsoft to invest in the E.U. & create JOBS then the E.U has to refrain from the practice of HUGE FINES.

Hey you cannot eat your cake & have it at the same time.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By inighthawki on 5/11/2009 7:40:24 PM , Rating: 3
I think u have it backwards, Intel/MS put their stuff there and in return they have to abide by the laws. The EU doesn't beg them to come on over in exchange for no penalties, you have things backwards.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By crystal clear on 5/11/2009 9:58:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
TThe EU doesn't beg them to come on over


Oh really - I dont know where you are based/located,but I do travel frequently to the E.U. region.

I know the situation in the E.U countries- the situation is very bad,they call it the great recession with millions of unemployed,with NO JOBS around.

The E.U. is flooded with CHEAP imports from China leaving nothing much to do in the E.U.-the high value of the EURO makes exports ultra expensive & imports dirt cheap.
You name it from textiles to computers to software to just anything, its Taiwan,India & China manufactured.

If the E.U. did not beg till NOW then they WILL certainly do so very soon.

Even in the high tech sectors its very bad.

You have be there to know how bad it is & getting even more worse.

With the exception of GERMANY all others are desperate for investments for JOB creations & economic revival.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/12/2009 8:01:34 AM , Rating: 1
We had the same problem in the U.S. for a while when the dollar was valued so high. Part of the problem is that China artificially values their currency lower so as to guarantee a fantastic export market. It would be wiser to tariff Chinese products to the point they can no longer compete. There would be 3-5 years of pain but after that companies would have production online elsewhere to fill demand. Meanwhile the Chinese economy would collapse.


By crystal clear on 5/12/2009 7:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Its high time something is done about this.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By BZDTemp on 5/12/2009 1:16:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know the situation in the E.U countries- the situation is very bad,they call it the great recession with millions of unemployed,with NO JOBS around.


? I do not know what EU you travel to but it must certainly be a different one than where I live!

The latest local figures I have say 3.4% unemployment. Average EU unemployment in April was 8.4%. It's worse in the south and east parts of the EU with Spain worst of and Holland doing best with 2.8%. The more rural the higher unemployment. Fact of matter is that some of the new EU countries was doing badly before joining the EU and their economy is steadily getting better so some places are lower than in recent years.

I think you need to travel more in the US if you think EU is doing badly. In fact the US figures for unemployment is 8.9%. So while more people in the EU are unemployed the population is bigger, almost 500 million souls, and the number of people registered as working constitutes and bigger part of the population.

US
Population: 306,412,334
Unemployed: 13,700,000
Rate: 8.9% meaning US workforce = 153,932,584

EU (25 countries)
Population: 499,673,325
Unemployed: 20,000,000
Rate: 8.4% meaning EU workforce = 238,095,238

Looks to me like either a lot of US people are to lazy to work or there are a lot of folks not registered as unemployed!

(Source: BLS and Eurostat)

PS. Who do you think makes the stuff sold in US stores? It's China!


By BZDTemp on 5/12/2009 1:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Dooh - seems something is wrong with my math today.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By crystal clear on 5/12/2009 7:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you need to travel more in the US if you think EU is doing badly.


Nobody denies that the situation in the USA is any better than the E.U.-its the same there.

The fact remains that the focus is on job creations through investment & not stimulus packages directed to infrastructore project like building/repairing roads etc.

Nobody denies that even in the USA its "made in China" .

The fact remains the USA has been exporting jobs to India & China & importing their finished products.

Its not that people in the USA are lazy & dont want to work, but companies in the USA are doing the damage by exporting jobs.

The ever greedy executives at highest level in these companies need to cut cost to afford themselves huge salaries/perks & bonuses.

So as in the USA even in the EU every job lost is damage done.


RE: Hit the EU where it hurts-job losses
By BZDTemp on 5/13/2009 7:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think we are debating two issues here.

1. The crisis which has much to do with most of us spending a little more than we should and saving to little. Plus the whole investment based on super optimistic predictions which have facilitated by big financial institutions and helped along on a big part the whole Bush no-regulation policy. The little saving most of us have done means the problems are worse then they could have been.

2. Jobs going to India, China, eastern Europe and other places. Yes that has meant some jobs lost but it has also meant jobs created. With the physical production so cheap it has enabled us to focus on knowledge and services to a much higher degree. The real problem in this is the move from one type of jobs to another has happened so quick many people are struggling to keep up. You see this in that areas in the US and EU which used to be industrial production centers are hit hard by this while other areas where focus is knowledge creation are doing okay and maybe even blooming e.g. computers, medicine, biochemistry is the place to be.


By crystal clear on 5/13/2009 8:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real problem in this is the move from one type of jobs to another has happened so quick many people are struggling to keep up.


You indentified the problem correctly plus it hit people so hard that it will take a long time for them to recover.

quote:
while other areas where focus is knowledge creation are doing okay and maybe even blooming e.g. computers, medicine, biochemistry is the place to be.


Yes the percentage of the population in the USA & EU involved in knowledge creation is very small compared to those involved in industrial production-(the majority of the population).

Jobs lost are lost forever.....

Knowledge creation is NOT so simple as it sounds it requires atleast 2 university degrees in the specific area like you mentioned.

To achieve 2 degrees means atleast 6 years or more at the minimum (depending what & where) & very EXPENSIVE.

Dont expect the majority of the population in their early or late 30s & 40s to do that.

Conclusion- You need protectionism of acceptable levels to ensure smooth (gradual & phased) transition from industrial production to knowledge creations.

That whats it is all about protecting JOBS...

Like somebody I know in a cyclone hit area said to me-

It took just a minute to destroy my house which will take a year to rebuild it.........



By crystal clear on 5/13/2009 7:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
Update- Intel hit with record $1.45 billion antitrust fine

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission imposed a record 1.06 billion euros ($1.45 billion) fine on chipmaker Intel Corp on Wednesday and ordered it to halt illegal rebates and other practices to squeeze out rival AMD.

The Commission said Intel must pay the fine, which represents 4.15 percent of the company's 2008 turnover, within three months of the date of the notification of the decision.



http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE54C1SO...

SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 13, 2009 – Paul Otellini, Intel Corporation president and CEO today issued the following statement regarding the European Commission decision on Intel's business practices:

"Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."

"We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not. The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don't perform the market acts accordingly."

"Intel never sells products below cost.
We have however, consistently invested in innovation, in manufacturing and in developing leadership technology. The result is that we can discount our products to compete in a highly competitive marketplace , passing along to consumers everywhere the efficiencies of being the world's leading volume manufacturer of microprocessors."

"Despite our strongly held views, as we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we're in compliance with their decision. Finally, there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry's best performing processors at lower prices."

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20...

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/legal/


The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By Smilin on 5/11/2009 10:03:12 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously. The EU is beginning to behave like an *abusive* monopoly.

They represent the sole access to the product known as the "European Market". If companies wish to "buy" this product they have to put up with the rules of the monopoly holder.

I'm sure companies are getting fed up with the intrusive oversight, regulation, unreasonable requests and outright financial blackmail but what are they going to do? They can't take their ball and go home. Nobody else is "selling" the European Market.




RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By tshen83 on 5/11/2009 10:15:17 AM , Rating: 1
The EU is not a monopoly but it acts as a big ass workers union almost. To protect the relatively high end jobs in Dresden fab, it will no doubt side with AMD, with bias.

Intel should just kill AMD right now for god's sake. There is no fun competing with a weakling who will cut prices belong marginal cost just to get a sympathetic antitrust ruling in their own backyard.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By Frallan on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
By Smilin on 5/11/2009 1:35:59 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't consider that a troll.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 10:36:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
To protect the relatively high end jobs in Dresden fab, it will no doubt side with AMD, with bias.
No more bias than the US pretty much not doing anything about Intel. The US protects its big market players just as much as the EU, so please do not make it out as though Intel is getting the raw deal here. Anyone thinking this is the case does not know the facts.

Dell's investors even suid Dell over this very matter, for not properly disclosing the rebates received from Intel which resulted in inflated profits.

It is illegal to use your market position in that fashion, plain and simple. How they got away with it so many times and for so long is beyond me.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By tshen83 on 5/11/2009 10:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
"No more bias than the US pretty much not doing anything about Intel"

So you agree that EU is biased in this case then?

Your argument is this: if US is biased by not doing anything against Intel, the EU should be able to do the same thing for AMD and give Intel a punch?

That's the mentality of a 3 year old.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 11:12:58 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So you agree that EU is biased in this case then?
I'm not saying they will be biased in their findings, what I am saying is that the EU has a responsibility to protect its assets and as such this case was far more likely to see the light of day in Europe than in the US. (thanks for taking what I said out of context though, I clearly said no more, as in the US is protecting their assets, not that the EU was laying charges based only on the fact that AMD is entrenched in Germany i.e tit for tat)

I hope the EU goes after Intel with everything they have, and as if they are fined, it is more than likely that a successful AMD suit will follow. Personally I find it ridiculous this has taken so long, there are multiple sources confirming the findings against Intel, they deleted emails in which the court had ordered they produce, and it was pretty clear that Intel was retaining market dominance in a time in which they had inferior products.

Sure they had the business market on their side, as it is hard to get businesses to change from the tried tested and true, but the numbers still do not add up.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By tshen83 on 5/11/2009 11:28:52 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know why EU feels like they should be responsible for a battle between two "US" companies. If the Europeans are so "pro AMD", why don't they just buy AMD processors?
Instead, they are buying Intel processors while trying to fine Intel to support the AMD employment base in Dresden.

As I said, Intel should end AMD's pathetic life right now. Then the Europeans would have no choice but to buy Intel processors. :) That would be a great day to shut the EU up when they type their "anti-Intel" lawsuit documents on a Intel PC running Microsoft Windows and Office.

I hope you will appreciate the irony.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't know why EU feels like they should be responsible for a battle between two "US" companies.
Although originally US based, AMD is no longer really a US company, and is heavily entrenched in Dresden Germany.
quote:
I hope you will appreciate the irony.
The only irony here is that you think Intel market domination is a good thing.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 12:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
LOL nice reasoning, except AMD is US based and that fab in Dresden is now property of the UAE. Yeah thats right, United Arab Emirates. German or EU it is not.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By tshen83 on 5/11/2009 12:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
UAE thinks that they own the Dresden fab. It is a pipe dream.

The US based AMD has controlling interest over it. As soon as it loses control of the Fab(which I think eventually it will), the Fab would lose the x86 license, and therefore lose over 90% of its valuation.

Nice try, but not good enough.


RE: The EU is behaving like a monopoly.
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 12:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
you think that would matter to them? They would continue operating in the arab nations and do so with impunity as no one will be able to force them not to without fear of death. Licensing is about a big a joke to these people as it is to the Chinese.


By tshen83 on 5/11/2009 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
So you are saying that after Intel revokes the x86 license, the fucking Arabs would move the Fab to an Arab nation and start pumping out outdated Shanghai Opteron designs that are already left in the dust?

There would be ramifications for stealing CPU designs and illegally manufacturing it.


By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
While I do agree that the EU has overstepped their boundaries in the past, they have the right to regulate their own market.

That being said, I think this should have gone down a long time ago, not only in the EU but in the US. They are being protected in the US because they are a true US company. If the positions were reversed and it was a European company, we would have seen multiple antitrust cases against them in the US.

While I do not agree with other EU antitrust cases (such as the entire browser fiasco), I 100% agree here. Intel is obviously in the wrong, you don't get multiple companies from multiple sources calling foul if there was not a thread of truth to it.

Best part is Intel is not really denying anything, from what I gather, it seems like they are denying what they were doing was illegal in the first place, not that they did not perform said acts.


thief
By supergarr on 5/11/2009 10:56:05 AM , Rating: 3
more thievery from the EU




A $3.8bn penalty
By crystal clear on 5/11/2009 10:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no indication at this time on how large the fine assessed against Intel might be;


'Steely' Neelie Kroes, Europe's Competition Commissioner, can fine Intel up to ten per cent of its annual turnover, which would mean a $3.8bn penalty. That would beat the €1.35bn fine, the previous largest, which Microsoft agreed to pay.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/11/intel_ec_f...




By Frallan on 5/11/2009 10:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
If Intel wants to keep the entire firm together and not have it split up they need a competitor. For the PC market that competitor is AMD.

AFAIK Intel has been accused of several blatant breeches of the market rules in the EU market place. If these allegations are been proven a hefty fine is what should be expected. This has nothing to do with EU vs. US in any way it is all about making "law breaking" unprofitable.

my 0.02€
/Frallan




Incredible
By Alex78 on 5/12/2009 2:24:30 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone, this is unbeliveable. Do you really think that the EU has an interest to fine Intel? Come on, you haven`t read the internet lately, have you?
1.
quote:
: "Intel has been found in violation of anti-trust legislation by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC)."
link: http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/processors/news/new...

2.
quote:
Intel fined $26 million for Korean antitrust violations. Link: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/06/south...

And i don`t think either Intel or AMD have fabs in Korea or Japan.
Intel simply broke the law and now it`s pay time.




EU
By coolkev99 on 5/12/2009 8:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Its starting to become pretty obvious that the real monster here is the EU.




It's a real pity...
By Beenthere on 5/11/2009 10:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
...that Microsucks and Intel aren't both fined 500 million Euros each for their violation of anti-trust laws. Their violations been documented countless times and they have both been convicted for same, yet they get away with token fines which they consider the price of doing business. Until it's no longer financially profitable to violate law, why would any criminal stop.




RE: It's a real pity...
By Beenthere on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: not sure why
By inighthawki on 5/11/2009 9:58:49 AM , Rating: 5
If intel wishes to remain selling anything in europe then they have to abide by their regulations. Saying there should be no penalties is stupid, because then nobody would every get charged for doing things outside the country.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: not sure why
By inighthawki on 5/11/2009 10:11:00 AM , Rating: 5
But all of those products are sold in the EU, and whether or not the problem is between US companies or not, the matter affects the EU. If the EU believes that Intel is attempting to monopolize the market, if it is true then the outcome will be just as harmful in the EU as the US, and they should have full rights to regulate their own market. Intel's market extends beyond the US, so anything Intel decides to do in Europe is Europe's business.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: not sure why
By StevoLincolnite on 5/11/2009 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whether or not the EU feels that Intel is being anti-competitive or not is beside the issue.


That -is- the issue, hence the article.

quote:
I think Intel was being anti-competitive as well, but I see no impact on the people of the EU that gives the EC the right to extract money from one company or another.


The lower pricing is great, but what happens when no competitor is in the picture? It would affect the entire planet.

quote:
The prices for mainstream processors have been damn near identical between the two companies throughout the entire ordeal so there is no price gouging involved that would effect the buyer.


I beg to differ, when AMD launched the original Athlon, Pentium 3 chips plummeted in price, when AMD launched the Athlon 64, Pentium 4 chips became chip as cheaps, when AMD launched the Phenom, AMD lowered it's prices in order to compete, and Intel did the same, With the Phenom 2, Suddenly the Quad Core processors just became that much cheaper.

If you think Prices haven't dropped, hows about going a little farther back in time, farther than a week?

quote:
Therefore the EU's ruling should be based on opening the door for AMD to determine what negative impact Intel had on its business and to justify that claim in a separate hearing. The EU governing body should not benefit from this matter.


They are opening the door for AMD, and preventing it from closing all together.

I however agree, the EU shouldn't be getting all the cash from this, I personally think it should all go to AMD, as they were the company that would have been directly damaged by any anti-competitive moves that Intel performed.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: not sure why
By StevoLincolnite on 5/11/2009 11:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats not the issue. Apparently the comments on these articles is escaping you. Its the EU using this as a money farm.


That maybe so, but the issue was that Intel was being anti-competitive.

quote:
There is a competitor and was one during the entire time frame of these allegations, so you don't really have an argument here.


And if there wasn't? However the Anti-Competitive behavior performed may have eluded AMD of some profits, which could have been utilized to pioneer more advanced Central Processing Units in order to best Intel, hence driving competition and ultimately lower prices, or did that slip your mind? :/ You seem to have a very one tracked mind on this subject and that is "The EU is the devil, Intel owns, Intel is an American company and has no right". - Well news flash, Intel is a world-wide company, if they intend to sell a product in another country, they have to obey by that countries rules.

quote:
I beg to differ that this happens in every market. Prices drop on old products when new ones come out, what shocker of an argument you have going there.


Of course the prices drop on old products when new ones are released, but it is accelerated when a competitor is in the market, but that wouldn't happen if AMD was almost non-existent, which is the bases of the argument.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Again you are fooling yourself. You'll never see even the slightest piece of this pie.
First time you have been correct all day! I don't live in the EU!

P.S Pooled money is pooled money, I see you have problems grasping this, but any monies going back into the government is spent on its citizens in one way or another, directly or indirectly.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 11:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still the EU benefiting on this is rather odd, unless it takes a billion dollars in expenses to hold hearings these days.
You are clearly missing the point here. AMD will get their day in court, but that is not what this is about.

Simple math is the explanation, if (Profits in Europe - Fine > 0 == no reason to change). A one time suit against Intel from AMD is not going to change anything. Unless the EU slaps Intel with a huge fine, there will be no reason to change their tactics.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
Proving a case vs Intel opens the door to future fines. Intel will be in the same boat as MS, they will be monitored for the next x amount of years. They will be fined over and over again until the EU finds that they have changed their practices. As others have also mentioned it will open the doors for AMD. The profit margin limit is per fine, 2-3 fines a in a few years add up quite quickly. Compound AMD's case against them and Intel may have some trouble in the EU for years to come.

You also forget once a company is monitored, they become far less aggressive. Intel probably won't be able to give incentives at all, even if they are legal in fear of retribution.

Intel will feel the pinch in the EU, and will change their practices accordingly, why you think my argument is a bust is beyond me.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yeah right man, are you really kidding yourself... Intel has a huge advantage in manufacturing. They could drop prices to absolutely ridiculous levels and drown AMD at any time.
Hahaha, you really have no understanding of what monopolistic behavior is do you? What you just described is a prime example of how you cannot use your market dominance. (In any country, let alone the EU)


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 12:30:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ouch you are definitely wrong there. There is no rule against a company using its own resources to its advantage. Thats called business. It happens every day and is perfectly legal.


RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 1:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no rule against a company using its own resources to its advantage.

Haha, of course there are. Using your market dominance to put all the small players out of business and to stop any other players from entering the market because it is no longer feasible to do so is illegal. Intel is borderline coercive monopoly, plain and simple.

It is also illegal to lower pricing and tell your OEM's that if you do not sign exclusive contracts they will lose their price reductions, which would give other OEM's an advantage over them. (This was the big issue in the EU)

I'm done yapping with you, I'm afraid if I continue you will also tell me that 1+1 = 3.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 2:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
You can argue all you want, antitrust cases in both EU and US seem to agree with me.

You seem to think that unless a company is a natural monopoly they are in the clear, and this is just not the case.(i.e your last statement is unfounded and incorrect)

Furthermore it does not matter what is happening now, but what happened in the past. That is like saying 'well you can't charge me for murdering people because I stopped that 5 years ago.'


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 2:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
actually the US seems to disagree in that AMD hasn't proven its case and there hasn't been legal standing to bring forth a case. now don't go making things up now or bringing in cases that have no bearing on the cpu market.

Nope not what I said anyway. I already said I think Intel is guilty. Like shoving words in peoples mouths do yah? My personal disagreement is the EU's monetary benefit. Get it moron?


RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 3:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
What on earth are you talking about. FTC is still investigating and AMD has not had a chance to prove their case considering it does not go to court until 2010.

I also understand what you are trying to say, I just 100% disagree. Any monies coming into the government goes back to the public, thus it is not to the EU's benefit, but to the consumers that were forced to pay high prices for years. Of course it won't directly go back to the public. Its not like the EU is going to cut a check to anyone that bought a computer but pooled money is pooled money. Whether or not you think this is 'right' is beyond the scope of this argument.


RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 11:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a competitor and was one during the entire time frame of these allegations, so you don't really have an argument here.
True monopolies are the thing of the past, not having any competitors is not a requisite to being a monopoly. Just as with all the big so called tech 'monopolies' these days, none of them are true monopolies. The case in the US against MS for example was for being a coercive monopoly, they still had competitors, but it was shown they used their large market position as an unfair advantage.

Intel falls under the same category, except they are far closer to the true definition of a coercive monopoly.


RE: not sure why
By michael67 on 5/11/2009 11:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still the EU benefiting on this is rather odd, unless it takes a billion dollars in expenses to hold hearings these days.

the fine got a 2 way function.

1. First of all, they did something wrong so they got a fine, its the same as if Intel was speeding on the road, you brake the law you get punished by it.

2. The EU should also benefit, because of the anti-competetif actions from Intel, citizens of the EU had to pay more for there computers.
The money from the fine go's back in to the budget so citizens have to pay less tax.
(it's not the perfect way but i don't no a better way to redistribute the money we pay to mouths for Intel CPUs)


RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 10:54:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The prices for mainstream processors have been damn near identical between the two companies throughout the entire ordeal so there is no price gouging involved that would effect the buyer.
So uninformed its not even funny! Go to archieve.org pick your favorite computer retailer (parts or otherwise) and please show me the equal pricing. Not only will you be hard pressed to find many manufacturers selling AMD parts, but please go compare the specs of two assembled PC's on these sites. Some sites even get rid of AMD products completely around 2004-2005, right smack in the middle of their dominance (i.e when A64 chips outperformed Intel chips in performance and price).

And of course there is also the mysterious missing internal emails, right when the courts requested them. (making matters worse the emails missing were written after AMD filed suit against Intel).

This is far worse than anything MS has ever done, and they were fined far worse. Intel has had a free pass far too long, its about time someone did something about it.


RE: not sure why
By Frallan on 5/11/2009 10:12:35 AM , Rating: 4
Ehhh?

No impact on the people of the EU? If the allegations has been proven the people of the EU had to buy overpriced computers for several years. The rules are there to protect the consumers not any company.

If AMD want money of Intel the will have to after them in an ordinary court of law. This is possible and even plausible if intel is fined by the EU beacause then it has allready been proven. What AMD has to do then is to calculate the damage they have suffered and sue Intel in Europe.

another 0.02€
/Frallan


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 11:55:01 AM , Rating: 1
No one paid for overpriced computers. Thats just garbage reasoning. The mainstream processors were within a few dollars of each other.

The issue should be the losses AMD took from not increasing its market share.


RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but as my post above explains, you are wrong, nothing else to say here.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:38:35 PM , Rating: 3
So I guess that 200-300 dollar minimum that I saved on every AMD based computer I bought from 2001-2006 was a figment of my imagination.

I also gave you a way to prove what you are saying. I really don't need too, I can pull up any site which will prove my findings (try newegg for starters, although US pricing, it shows how much cheaper the chips are)

P.S I'm not being bias either, I currently own two intel machines as they currently outperform anything AMD has to offer, but I have been building computers for many years. So please do not tell me that prices have always been equal, as that is just not the case.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By inighthawki on 5/11/2009 5:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
AMD has for the past few years been selling their chips at much cheaper prices than Intel, and it's not until AMD's $200 chips meet or exceed the performance of Intel's $500 chips that Intel finally manages to "magically" reduce the price of that chip to be equal to or just under the cost of that equivalent AMD chip. Something smells very fishy to me with that. (Q6600/6700 are prime examples)


RE: not sure why
By Kary on 5/11/2009 5:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
The way Intel blocked AMD was by offering better pricing if OEMs followed Intel's rules (make a minimum of 95% of your computers with Intel CPUs, we charge you 20% less for the CPUs..for instance).

So, if Intel is found guilty....aren't they being found guilty of LOWERING the price for OEMs and the end user...should Intel be given money for LOWERING end user pricing?
(I'm trying to say you are confusing anti-competitive with anti-consumer in case none of that made sense to you.)

As for the case helping AMD file it's own lawsuit: Yep, agree totally.


RE: not sure why
By tshen83 on 5/11/2009 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 1
Well it is not really surprising since AMD does have the Dresden fab in Germany. So the EU courts are really biased in the first place to try to protect its own job market. A bust AMD will cause a ton of unemployment in Germany.


RE: not sure why
By justjc on 5/11/2009 10:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel Ireland includes two facilities located in Leixlip and Shannon. Ireland is Intel's centre of manufacturing excellence in Europe.
- http://www.intel.com/jobs/Ireland/

The two Irish plants currently ensures that 6000 have jobs in Ireland, where the AMD plant in Dresden "only" employs 3000, so Intel should really be the one with the bias. The number for AMD was found at http://www.amd-jobs.de/08jobs/jobs/jobs.htm


RE: not sure why
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/11/2009 10:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
It seems everybody is getting a bailout these days. EU's bailout strategy is to take money from American companies. Quite the strategy they have there...I'd love to see Intel tell them to shove it.


RE: not sure why
By BZDTemp on 5/11/2009 11:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
LOL

The EU does not need a bailout.

It is far from having to resort to things like selling the whole place to China or the oil nations of the Middle east. There have not even the need to print money like it was wall paper :-)

I think it is sad to see every thread about EU trying to make big companies compete fairly become a EU is grabbing money from the US. In reality the EU is doing what the US should be doing and what the US was doing until Bush put a stop to it.

This will sound rude but honestly. Try to read little about what the EU is instead of just resorting to an automatic misunderstood us vs. them reaction.


RE: not sure why
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/11/2009 11:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
If the EU was concerned about fair competition then it would force Intel to pay money to competitors as reparation for past behavior. In reality, EU is collecting money for itself and AMD will not see a penny of it. Complete BS is what this is, just as the Microsoft payouts have been.

I used the term bailout jokingly, simply because they are taking effectively free (and undeserved) money in a time of economic hardship.


RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 11:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the EU was concerned about fair competition then it would force Intel to pay money to competitors as reparation for past behavior. In reality, EU is collecting money for itself and AMD will not see a penny of it. Complete BS is what this is, just as the Microsoft payouts have been.
Talk about a slippery slope! The reason this has not been done is because IT IS NOT LEGAL! A government panel cannot fine a company and give the compensation to another company, this is what the courts are for.

That being said it is the government responsibility to enforce the law of the land. And in both the EU and the US, the only way to do this is to fine companies to the point in which it is no longer profitable to continue their illegal practices.


RE: not sure why
By michael67 on 5/11/2009 11:55:11 AM , Rating: 3
Dutch beer brewer Heineken, did basically the same thing as Intel did on its home marked.

They got a fine of 100m from the EU, and Holland only got 17m citizen of the 500m in the hole EU, if you would calculate that fine to the hole EU that would be then a fine of 3b.

recently 4 glass makers got a 0.5b fine for cartel forming (2 from the EU and 2 from JP)

So don't think they just hard on US company,s they are just as tough on EU company's


RE: not sure why
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/12/2009 8:03:45 AM , Rating: 3
The EU in general is a mistake. I'm sure many companies across the globe would like to see if go away.


RE: not sure why
By BZDTemp on 5/13/2009 9:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
EU is a great thing. Here are some of the positives.

- Peace. The economic dependency and stability in Europe is much to do with the EU.

- Prosperity. Free trade and free movement of people inside the EU makes for less red tape.

- Common standards on most everything from safety, environment to roaming prices. Good for consumers especially in the countries less advanced in those areas and good for business since one approval = approval for all EU countries.

- Big companies can not just hide behind the borders of one country. Or pull tricks like Intel :-)

On the downside it is difficult when 500.000.000 people tries to decide things so many things take time and much compromising is needed.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki