backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Mar 14 at 11:45 PM


Intel CEO Paul Otellini arrives at the EC hearing building in Brussels to argue Intel's case.   (Source: REUTERS/Francois Lenoir)
Chipmaker continues to plead its innocence before the EU

The European Commission (EC), the executive arm of the European Union (EU), has already brought one mighty opponent to its knees.  It fined Microsoft almost $2.6B USD overall for antitrust violations, including fines of $690M USD and $1.4B USD.  Microsoft tried to refuse to comply with EC's verdict, but ended up paying for it even more in the end.

Now the EU is pursuing chipmaker Intel for allegedly employing anticompetitive practices such as a price slashing and illegal rebates to drive smaller chipmakers out of business.  The EU issued formal charges against Intel in July.  Intel responded quickly that the charges were nonsense and that AMD was the one complaining, not the customers.  AMD claimed that Intel reaped $60B USD in monopoly profits.

Intel fought back demanding a hearing before the EC where it could argue its viewpoint.  Meanwhile, Intel suffered another loss when its German offices were raided last month by EU agents, who seized documents applicable in the antitrust case.  Germany was one of the countries in which Intel is allegedly to have employed price manipulation and illegal rebates.

Now Intel has finally gotten its way, in effect, as it had a chance to plead its case before an EC hearing.  Intel's chief executive Paul Otellini travelled to Brussels to represent his company at the hearing.  Intel, whose chips are in four out of every five of the world's servers and PCs, has also been accused by the EC of paying off computer manufacturers to pick Intel chips over AMD chips.  Intel has denied these claims saying it competes fiercely and legally.

Mr. Otellini addressed Hearing Officer Karen Williams, arguing that Intel's financial practices were well within the law and that its success was from having a better product, not illegal maneuvers.  Ms. Williams will report to Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes on the case at the end of the hearing. 

Commissioner Kroes, who recently championed the $1.4B USD fine against Microsoft, will make a final suggestion to the full European Commission about Intel's fate and the amount of a possible fine.  Fines can be up to 10% of a company's global revenue, under EU business law.  Commissioner Kroes previously stated that Intel may be a larger threat to E.U. business then Microsoft.  Following Commissioner Kroes statement, the EC will put the issue to a vote and come to a judgment.

Intel had most of the day yesterday to plead its case.   It discussed proprietary information during the hearing, requiring several participants to have to leave for extended periods.  The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and New York attorney general's office, who are investigating possible Intel antitrust violations within the U.S, were both represented.  It is expected that they may launch similar antitrust campaigns following in the EU's footsteps.

Today several consumer groups will have their chance to speak.  BEUC, a European umbrella group for consumer groups, and individual groups from the Netherlands, Spain and France will all be represented.  The groups so far have not come out with a firm stance on the allegations, but Monique Goyens, BEUC director general assured, "We may do so later."

She further stated that BEUC wants to ensure that consumer issues about pricing and innovation are properly examined and addressed.  AMD and Hewlett Packard are also both going to speak today.  Their accounts and testimony will be critical as their relationships with Intel figures heavily with the charges leveled against the chipmaker.

The EU, in addition to the Intel office raids, raided multiple retailers that sold only Intel chips and not AMD chips.  The materials gathered in these raids cannot be used in the hearing.  However the EC could elect to issue new charges against Intel at any point.  It did so three times during the Microsoft case, so such a result is not unexpected.





Comments     Threshold


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

More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 11:37:13 AM , Rating: 5
Here we go again. Break out the violins, the nasty EU is prosecuting Intel for its monopoly, oh poor Intel.

I get so sick of the EU being accused of fining American companies to fill its own coffers - anyone who thinks that is the best example of an ignorant American.

Last I saw, the EU's GDP was second only to the USA, so I wouldnt say its poor.

Also, some say Intel should just be left alone, and let bygones be bygones.

Great guys, next you are going to say we should let murderers go free, and let bygones be bygones. Where does it stop? Crime is crime, whether its committed by an individual or a corporation. I see no Americans complaing that your very own DoJ fined Microsoft and restricted, no one seems to want to side with Comcast. No one brings up that Intel is being investigated for the exact same thing in the USA. Yet as soon as Intel is given trouble in the EU, the EU is full of evil commies. FYI, Intel was found guilty in Japan, and I think South Korea too. Are they full of evil commies too?

If Intel is innocent (which, given the precedence, non legal of course, in Korea and Japan I highly doubt), then thats fine. If they arent, they should pay.

PS: I'm South African, not European.




RE: More European = Communist Comments
By pauluskc on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2008 12:02:19 PM , Rating: 3
A high GDP does not indicate that you have plenty of money to spend. I think the US debt proves that.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 12:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
Aha! Commies fine companies! The thought never occurred to me!

They fined Microsoft for their own gain? aha! My non-thought as well.

I was just curious where the damn money went people. Easy on the commie-crap, that's a different thread in this discussion. One facet at a time.

And where does the GDP have anything to do with anything? the EC doesn't have that kind of GDP.. maybe the EU. If they take these fines and do like one poster here suggested and upgraded entire educational systems in a third-world country (or even their own Union) that'd be nice.

Please stick to my original question.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: More European = Communist Comments
By pauluskc on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 12:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to bother, read the post by nofranchise below.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By nofranchise on 3/12/2008 11:51:57 AM , Rating: 3
So... I don't get it. You think it is unfair that the EU fines a criminal? So they should let them go with a warning or what?

Oh i get it - it's the well known "The EU needs the money" argument again. Right.

The billions in fines pay for a legal system that does actually prosecute and convict corporations if they break the law.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By pauluskc on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: More European = Communist Comments
By nofranchise on 3/12/2008 12:06:40 PM , Rating: 3
You people crack me up again and again.

"Show me the money!" - The money is being spent the same way tax is being spent. On government - or in this case - Union expenses...

You actually believe the fines "grease" a select number of people??? Yeah - that's believable - wouldn't it be easier to ACCEPT bribes from Intel in the shadows than host an open trial with huge press???

Oh I forgot, the EU WANTED bribes but the cute and cuddly Intel from butterscotch mountain wouldn't do it, so now the eeeevil EU has to steal it away! Stand and deliver!


By hathost on 3/14/2008 4:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Except that there is no such thing as government having enough money. If the government taxed everyone 100% they still wouldn't have enough it the nature of gov't.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By crystal clear on 3/12/2008 12:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
To pay for those inflated salaries+perks+golden parachutes.....for those E.U commisioners & staff.

Good life...flying first class,$1000+ hotel suites
expensive dinnings etc.

Enjoy


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 12:07:09 PM , Rating: 1
Another ignorant American.

Hey, its not like any American politicians are corrupt. I mean, its not like John McCain found out about that Boeing Scandal in 2002. Its not like WaterGate ever happened.

Try to post concrete examples instead of just FUD, better way to argue.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By crystal clear on 3/12/2008 12:32:37 PM , Rating: 4
Yes stay a few months in Brussels to see for yourself what I write.

I drop in frequently there ...

There is no business like the fine business...


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 5
meh, not crazy about Brussels myself.

But I do think its ironic to characterize the EU has bloated and corrupt, when Washington is hardly the opposite.

Yes, the EU is most likely rife with corruption, but lets not forget that just about all countries are, and the US, if its not the most corrupt, is up there with the most corrupt.


By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 12:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
Hypocritical is a better word than ironic, especially if I believed that Washington wasn't corrupt. Which everyone knows isn't the case.

Unless you mean it's ironic because they punish a company for being bloated and corrupt, when they themselves are bloated and corrupt. Wait, no, that's hyprocracy again.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Parhel on 3/12/2008 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 4
It's naive to suggest that the US is among the most corrupt of countries. Travel the world a bit, and you'll see what political corruption really means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_index


By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 1:41:27 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I grew up in South Africa, so I have a fair idea of what corruption is.

The US may not be among the most corrupt countries, but according to your source, Western Europe (an important part of the US) is on average less corrupt than the USA.


By weskurtz0081 on 3/12/2008 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm.... I think there might be a better way of getting people to listen to you rather than just calling them ignorant. If I just started calling you ignorant because you didn't agree with me, I doubt you would be very willing to listen to what I had to say.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Ananke on 3/12/2008 1:00:26 PM , Rating: 3
Billions of fines go to the EU budget. How money of that budget are distributed thereafter is EU business, not American. Have you heard if somebody outside USA demanded how the President Bush must spend American budget?
The focus is the investigation of illegal business practices, which may or may not exist or existed. If Intel is right, OK, they will not be fined. And they will not pay the EU legal expenses on the case either.
In this case it is in EU interest to scrutinize business practices, since non-european company have natural monopoly in socially and defensive sensitive field such as the microprocessor development and manufacturing. I have the feeling similar and so serious case hasn't happened in USA because of the strong lobby connection domestic corporation have with our "honest and trustfull" government.
EU is very careful about evolution of companies into natural monopolies, and as far as it is possible it tries to support fragmented and competitive free market, what the purpose of government is in free market economy. Please, don't blame the people that they are trying to have better democracy and fair economy.
As far as where the fines go - would you justify the fines better if you know that money from EU budget go to the public healthcare too? Isn't that a nobel enough purpose? Or it would be better spent in prolonging Iraq war, so several thousand more soldiers have greater chance to die there. And several corporations would better chance to make more billions also. Which way is better - American or European?


By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 1:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
Jamaican!

Go Rasta!


By prenox on 3/12/2008 1:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
If they do find Intel did wrong I don't see this money going to help AMD or any other company that Intel may have hurt.


By xdrol on 3/13/2008 11:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
Same place your (ehm, my) tax money goes.. Education, infrastrucute, research, etc. (yeah, ofc. military and such as well)


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By rudolphna on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 12:55:18 PM , Rating: 4
Sigh......

Before I start, are you aware that Intel is being prosecuted by the US Department of Justice? For breaking laws? Like, anti competitive laws? you are aware of that right?

Okay, so the EU isnt the only party concerned about Intel. Even in the US, some of the actions alleged to have been committed by Intel would definitely be illegal. So, the EU is not the only entity investigating Intel.

Do you know what Intel did exactly, or why its illegal? Intel paid manufacturers to not stock AMD products at all. Not paid them to sell Intel, oh no, paid them to not sell AMD. Consumers didnt have a choice.

Say Person A heard about AMD on the Internet. He wanted to try one, so he went to Dell. And he said to Dell, "Do you got one of them AMD's?" Dell says no, because Intel paid us not to. "Okay", says Person A. He goes to HP. Same story - wont stock'em because Intel wont allow them to.

Do you see the problem there? Even if a consumer was informed and wanted to exercise their right to choose a product, Intel was unlawfully preventing them from doing so. It has nothing to do with who has the fastest CPU, or the best marketed CPU - had AMD produced nothing but useless CPUs for the pats 10 years, Intel still behaved illegally.

Yes, Intel has the better CPU now - how does that change things? They still broke the law in the past. If I murder someone but then become a good boy again, is that okay? Or should I serve penance for my crimes? The answer, so just about every court in the world believes, is yes - just because you dont commit the crime right now doesnt mean you cant be prosecuted for it.

I didnt call all Americans ignorant - that in itself would be ignorant. I called people who are American and think the EU is full of commie bastards who tax good old American corporations for profit, ignorant Americans.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 1:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Intel was? Sounds like Dell and HP were the ones preventing the consumer from choice.

I do see the problem with Intel telling them you can't stock the competitor. But Dell & HP voided their innocence the moment they said "OK".

I think that it's unfair that Intel is the only one to be punished. Dell & HP could have said no to Intel and if Intel shorted them supplies, guess AMD gets a little bit more exposure and sales etc.

I think that if those commie bastards should take Intel to court, Dell, HP, and any lowly retailer that took Intel's money should be next on the chopping block. Or is that OK for them to take the money?


By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 1:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
You have a valid point about Dell and HP, in that they share the blame.

I dont know why both the US DoJ and the EC have temporarily forgotten about Dell and HP in favour of pursuing Intel. Perhaps Dell and HP made deals for immunity? I dont know, but yes, they also committed a crime.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By xti on 3/13/2008 11:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
it isn't that black and white as you make it out to be.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Hawkido on 3/13/2008 12:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel was? Sounds like Dell and HP were the ones preventing the consumer from choice.


Very Clever you!

No, But really, The way the "Crime" was committed was not so overt.

Intel approached a vendor. Intel tells vendor if they sell any (or more than a small%) of AMD products then Intel will cancel their "Discount". See Intel wasn't actually charging vendors more for their products they were simply removing the discount that only the people who sell only Intel get. Which means that another vendor can out price you on a PC if you don't have the discount by $100 on a PC of the exact same specs, because you had to pay more for the Intel Chipset, Network Card, CPU, etc...

The plan worked. Once one vendor fell in the rest had to because AMD wasn't large enough to provide CPUs to all the vendors. And this is the time when AMD HAD THE BETTER CPU. So shut up about Core2Duo already... It wasn't even a wet dream at the time. Intel was still trying to make NutBurst work.

Now as to the fine... I think a percentage should got to the EU for legal costs. The rest should be split up to AMD and other companies who were bold enought to put their name on the complaint before the ruling (Weighted according to Estimated loss of profit)


By michael67 on 3/13/2008 9:28:32 PM , Rating: 1
Actually it doesnt work that way the EU ore/and US will if found guilty fine them for a X amount
Then AMD can go to civil corth and sue Intel for strong arming them out of the marked.
whit a conviction from the EU and/ore US they make a mouths stronger case.

So if convicted Intel got to put a big chunk of money aside to pay for all the legal fees, fine's, and compensation to AMD, ware the fine for Microsoft could look like a a ticked for jay-walking.

If it go's really wrong for Intel, i wouldn't be surprised if it end up between 10 to 25 billion dollars what they can put aside for fines and compensation.

Why do you think Intel CEO Paul Otellini went personally to the hearing, they are shitting there pants after what happened to MS and also they see that the EU takes wrong doing by monopolist mouths more serious the the US dose.
At least in the past.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By rudolphna on 3/12/2008 1:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you are saying, and yes i was aware of that. But, really, whose fault is it? Is it intel, for offering that, or the fault of the company (dell for example) that accepts that bribe? While blame would go to both companies, Dell would be more at fault for accepting such a deal. But Intel is still at fault, but such a massive fine is unecessary. A fine yes, but not one of such magnitude. if most europeans didnt hate America and think we are a bunch of fat, lazy rich, polluting maniacs, then maybe you wouldnt have so many americans who think that the EU is out to get the US. No offense, because i like europe btw.


By gmw1082 on 3/13/2008 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I want to let companies like Dell off the hook, but I thought the deal was more like this.

Intel "If you stop selling AMD we will offer our processors at a good price and give you some extra cash on the side."

Company "That doesn't sound legal."

Intel "If you keep selling AMD we'll raise the price you have to pay for our processors. You wouldn't want your competition paying less would you?"

Company "Well I guess you don't leave us much choice but to accept your offer."


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By xti on 3/13/2008 11:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
Just because a Dell of HP say no, does that let intel off the hook.


By z3R0C00L on 3/14/2008 2:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know what Intel did exactly, or why its illegal? Intel paid manufacturers to not stock AMD products at all. Not paid them to sell Intel, oh no, paid them to not sell AMD. Consumers didnt have a choice.


Wow, you made that statement like it were true. That's the allegations against Intel, not exactly what transpired. You're innocent until proven guilty.

As for the whole Dell quote about Dell telling customers they were paid not to sell AMD processors that's un-true. Intel offered discounts to companies that sold an x number of Intel based products. The more products the heftier the discount. As such companies made the choice of not selling AMD processors in order to get a heftier discount. Nothing wrong with that as it's how the IT world operates.

The issue at hand is whether AMD could compete with Intel. Well they couldn't compete with Intel due to Intel having had the superior product from their inception. AMD WAS catching up with K7 and then K8... but Intel fought back with Core and Core2.

Whether AMD can compete or not is not Antitrust as the consumer did not suffer in this case (Intel's hefty discounts to OEM's actually pushed the prices of personal computers lower and Intel further pushed the prices lower with the introduction of the Core2 family (yes, AMD was happy selling X2's at over $500 for the base model ripping off customers or don't you remember).

That same $500 CPU (X2 3800+) was brought down to nearly $99 once Core2 launched almost over night. Intel's practices have benefited consumers, not the opposite. They've just been hard on AMD. And Honestly I don't care about AMD or Intel. I'm a consumer.. I care about pricing and performance.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By xti on 3/13/2008 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 1
stop making us look ignorant then...


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By The Irish Patient on 3/12/2008 12:49:35 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't have a problem with the EU if Intel was truly being prosecuted for having a monopoly. They don't. AMD, IBM, and Motorola all made CPUs, and absolutely nothing stops Philips or Seimens from bringing out their own CPUs if they really think they can make a product the public will buy.

You say things like "crime is crime" and you ask whether I would let a murderer go free. That is a foolish analogy. There are very few acts that are universally considered to be a crime in all countries. You've deliberately picked murder as the example because it's universally reviled. Moreover, the prosecution of murder is a purely internal matter for each country. The USA does not try to tell the EU what actions should and should not be considered murder, nor what penalties to impose.

What we in the USA are seeing is that the EU has a very leftist view of what constitutes anticompetitive behavior. Worse, the EU seems determined to export that view to the rest of the world.

AMD's problem is that it was badly managed, in that it failed to advertise massively during the window of time in which it made the superior product. Intel's advertisements were everywhere; AMD didn't advertise at all. Big surprise, consumers bought into the Intel name even when AMD made the better product. And now that AMD products are inferior, the company is bleeding red ink. Again, a big surprise.

The EU's prosecutions would be OK except that the EU is imposing its questionable concepts of "crime" on the rest of the world, not just on European actors. This is a global economy. The EU claims the right to fine a global company for 10% of its entire worldwide revenues (not just European revenues) for actions that really didn't make much of a difference to consumers. This has the effect of making flawed European laws the default for the rest of the world.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By Proteusza on 3/12/2008 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 4
First, AMD and Intel are the top two desktop x86 CPU manufacturers.

quote:
absolutely nothing stops Philips or Seimens from bringing out their own CPUs if they really think they can make a product the public will buy.


The cost of entry to the market is so high that it probably wouldnt be possible. Any company thats want to start a desktop CPU division needs to make x86 CPUs, which means licensing lots of technology from Intel, and doing lots of work to ensure compatibility, and get motherboard manufacturers on board. Its daunting - thats why not even IBM computes in that space anymore.

quote:
What we in the USA are seeing is that the EU has a very leftist view of what constitutes anticompetitive behavior. Worse, the EU seems determined to export that view to the rest of the world.


If thats the case, why was Intel found guilty in Japan, and why is the US Department of Justice investigating Intel now? If Intel is being investigated by the US DoJ for the same crime as in the EU, does the US DoJ also have a very leftist view of crime? Should the US DoJ drop its lawsuit?

quote:
AMD's problem is that it was badly managed, in that it failed to advertise massively during the window of time in which it made the superior product. Intel's advertisements were everywhere; AMD didn't advertise at all. Big surprise, consumers bought into the Intel name even when AMD made the better product. And now that AMD products are inferior, the company is bleeding red ink. Again, a big surprise.


Funnily enough, it did advertise - I saw a few AMD adverts. Its problem was that Intel unlawfully forced manufacturers not to stock AMD products, and even tried to force (with some success) motherboard manufacturers to not make AMD compatible motherboards. You can advertise your product as much as you like - if no store is willing to carry it because of your competitor's illegal actions, it is worthless.

quote:
The EU's prosecutions would be OK except that the EU is imposing its questionable concepts of "crime" on the rest of the world, not just on European actors. This is a global economy.


Even if the EU were the only one investigating Intel, and even if the US were not investigating Intel (which alone makes your argument invalid), if a corporation wants to do business in a country, it must abide by the country's laws. I dont see AMD or Intel moaning about Sharia law in the Middle East, yet I'm pretty sure they do busines there. Is the Middle East not politically correct because they have their own laws which they expect individuals and corporations to abide by?


By The Irish Patient on 3/12/2008 3:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
(1) Cost of entry is indeed daunting, but it is not punishable anticompetitive conduct. Costs of entry also apply to companies like AMD that are already in a market, but making a somewhat obsolete product. AMD faces a tough cost of entry to design a product that can equal or better the Core 2 architecture. AMD also faces a multi-billion dollar barrier to begin 45 nm production. That was my point. Barriers like these do more to explain AMD's problems than Intel's conduct.

(2) Japan's Fair Trade Commission merely issued a three page report criticizing Intel's rebate practices. Intel revised the program, and that was the end of the matter. There was never any discussion in Japan about imposing penalties of up to 10% of global revenue. BTW, Intel has also changed its rebate practices in Europe. This is all old news; time to move on as the Japanese have done.

As for the DOJ investigation in the USA, there is no consensus that Intel violated US law. US anticompetition laws generally require collusive action among potential competitors. Rebates offered by a competitor generally aren't enough, as long as the final price after rebate doesn't represent dumping at below cost. More fundamentally, US law doesn't require a competitor to back off on its efforts merely because its market share reaches X percentage.

Oddly, AMD unsuccessfully offered a bride that would have violated US anticompetition law had it been accepted. AMD freely admits that it offered HP one million CPUs in 2002 at zero cost as an "incentive." Unfortunately for AMD, HP liked Intel's rebates better. There is no claim by AMD that Intel's CPUs were priced below cost after rebate. Clearly, one million AMD CPUs for free is well below cost, making AMD's failed effort a clear violation of US law.

(3)
quote:
You can advertise your product as much as you like - if no store is willing to carry it because of your competitor's illegal actions, it is worthless.


Funny, that didn't stop AMD from trouncing Intel during the last quarters of the Netburst era. AMD does well when it has a superior product and poorly when it has an inferior product. US law is not receptive to antitrust lawsuits under these circumstances.

(4)
quote:
if a corporation wants to do business in a country, it must abide by the country's laws.


I agree, and the corporation should be free to price its product accordingly in each country. But the EU isn't content with enforcing EU law within the EU. The EU claims the right to enforce EU law worldwide, by making all global revenue subject to EU penalty.



RE: More European = Communist Comments
By z3R0C00L on 3/14/2008 2:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If thats the case, why was Intel found guilty in Japan, and why is the US Department of Justice investigating Intel now? If Intel is being investigated by the US DoJ for the same crime as in the EU, does the US DoJ also have a very leftist view of crime? Should the US DoJ drop its lawsuit?


Answer is simple. The DoJ is investigating Intel's practices due to complaints made by AMD.

As for Japan and other countries, they have differing laws. Intel did not break Anti-trust laws but rather offering discounts to vendors which is not legal in certain countries (but is still widely practiced, if I buy 1,000 CPU's from Ingram Micro (major distributor) I will pay less then if I bought 1). Of course that practice is legal in Canada, the USA and Europe.

quote:
Funnily enough, it did advertise - I saw a few AMD adverts. Its problem was that Intel unlawfully forced manufacturers not to stock AMD products, and even tried to force (with some success) motherboard manufacturers to not make AMD compatible motherboards. You can advertise your product as much as you like - if no store is willing to carry it because of your competitor's illegal actions, it is worthless.


Ahh another false allegation.. you're quite the fanboy there. Intel did not force anyone from not stocking AMD CPU's. Let me explain again.
Dell wants to buy CPU's from Intel. Intel has tiered pricing. Dell wants the better price therefore Dell needs to buy the largest amount of CPUs to get the better price (the more you buy the larger the rebate). Intel does not specifically reward companies from not stocking AMD products but rather gives the OEMs hefty discounts based on the amount of Intel CPUs they purchase. As such OEMs blow all their funds on Intel products (because they know the Intel name will sale). Intel ALSO jointly helps OEM advertise their products (Intel Inside). It's a win/win/win situation for the OEM/Intel and the Consumer. The heftier discounts are passed along to the consumer (notice the lowering of the PC price year after year.. lately being notebooks). Intel sells a ton of CPUs and OEMs get help marketing their products that have Intel Inside (Centrino etc).

AMD doesn't do that practice (which is legal) as such it could be said that Intel is in the position they're in due Intelligent forward looking marketing campaign performance and a more streamlined and consumer/OEM focused business model. You can have a superior product (K8 vs. Netburst), but if you don't market it.. no one will know.

I do apologize for the pWnage.. I stick to facts instead of making allegations. I don't side with Intel or AMD simply the facts.


By z3R0C00L on 3/14/2008 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
I should add that I am a member of the IT world. I used to run my own computer business and dealt with distributors such as Tech Data, Ingram Micro, ASI, Extranet, DHS etc.

I know how it works, and you don't and I understand that you don't. I'm not going to judge you simply provide you with the facts.

Intel will be cleared in the USA, as for Microsoft.. they are a Monopoly. There is no denying that Microsoft does practice unfair practices (especially with the inclusion of several sub-products withing their O/S). This is illegal (Including Windows Media Player, with Windows should be viewed as illegal).

Offering a link to download the product after Windows Installation should be the proper practice. Microsoft has started doing that with MSN\Windows Messenger and I applaud them. (as well as ways of changing the default programs used to access the web etc).

Microsoft has taken steps to address much of the allegations made against them. The one allegation I disagree with is that Microsoft must give THEIR source code to the EU.. that is absurd. That is not communism but Fascism. The EU does not own Microsoft Intellectual property.

I would much rather see Microsoft stop selling it's products in Europe for a year to see how negatively it would impact the EU.


By michael67 on 3/14/2008 11:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
Did you now that one of your greatest presidents, president Roosevelt would be by European standards be considered extremely left, even by the left wing EU parties.
Just to put in perspective how left the EU is.


RE: More European = Communist Comments
By afkrotch on 3/13/2008 2:13:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's called "innocent before proven guilty." In the EU, it's "you're just guilty and we have zero evidence."

That's what I see is wrong with it. Instead they fine them, then ransack their offices, which, if they even find anything can't be used in this case.

Would you like it if the police busted into your house, threw you in jail, only on the assumption from some other person that you committed a crime? During then, they are raiding your house looking for evidence. It's called "unreasonable" search and seizure.


By nofranchise on 3/13/2008 11:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
That's US law not EU law - and please do document, that the EU has NO evidence. Who is you inside source?


By z3R0C00L on 3/14/2008 2:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
The EU works a lot like Nazi Germany or Stalin Russia in the sense that government acts for the "perceived" benefit of the people.
The Big Brother concept. Hence why they've got Camera's on MOST street Corners in London, monitoring the populous to ensure "security".

We Canadians and Americans are falling for this slowly, giving up our essential freedoms for security (especially since 9/11).

So we cannot apply US law/Logic to the EU. They're an evil organization hell bent on consolidating power and limiting financial, social and fiscal liberties.

It's the whole One World government Concept.


Short memory
By kontorotsui on 3/12/2008 11:42:58 AM , Rating: 3
Have you forgot AMD Athlon motherboards sold in white nameless cases because all the makers were scared by Intel, threatening "component shortages", if they dared to sell boards for the competition?




RE: Short memory
By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 5
Why these retailers with these big laws protecting them were so scared doesn't make sense. Sounds like they are just as guilty as Intel at preventing choice for the consumer.

But Intel's the one to get punished.


RE: Short memory
By Topweasel on 3/12/2008 2:21:19 PM , Rating: 3
What he is talking about is the the old Athlon Slot A mobo's. Intel just a month prior to its release said it was about to hit chipset shortages. By making a general announcement that stocks were low Intel thought it would give them the leeway to choose who and how much to ship chipsets to. Behind the scenes they where supposedly threatening manufacturers with limited chipset shipments if they made Slot A boards.

Asus was one of the few big manufacturers to get away with it and even they would only do white boxes and the only reason they did that was the manufactured 50% of Intel boards at the time (not compatible boards but Intel labeled boards as Intel doesn't manufacture any of them.

It would be different if both companies where relatively close to the same size, but AMD couldn't make nearly enough (and still can't) CPU's to go into Asus motherboard which made it nearly impossible for asus to be able to shift over unused Intel production (due to "chip shortages") to AMD based products. Intel knew this and unfairly tried to make it impossible to compete in an attempt to make them the next Centuar\Cyrix. It was worse because they forced AMD in the patent negotiations to not make any CPU's after the K6 that were bus and pin compatible with Intel.


RE: Short memory
By DallasTexas on 3/12/2008 4:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
Have you forgotten that large OEM's are free to choose whatever supplier provides the best solution, price, performance and steady source of supply?

How about your allegations are just that - allegations?

Now that AMD has finally produced something, it seems the AMD bleeding hearts are coming out of the woodwork again.


RE: Short memory
By eye smite on 3/12/2008 7:04:52 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. These business practices from intel were alive and well in the days of the athlonxp and before. They used this same sort of dirty business conduct during the days of the 8086 to undercut and dry up IBM's 8088 market on the original PC's. This practice never became more prevalent than during the days of the athlon64 as AMD was making as good and in most cases a better cpu than intel. As a result, wow just wow, intel had to shift gears and actually compete instead of being so lax and born was the core architecture. Why? Well they couldn't strong arm their way through the market anymore, it was catching too much heat, as was seen today.


RE: Short memory
By afkrotch on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
Precedence....
By cscpianoman on 3/12/2008 1:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Intel is facing a huge precedence on this one and at the least they can "defend" their case. However, if they lose, they should not pull a Microsoft and linger. They should pay the fine, change their practices and move on.

Personally, I call foul on Intel. Whether the evidence substantiates that is left to be seen, but I expect we will see a billion dollar fine from the EU.




RE: Precedence....
By INeedCache on 3/12/2008 11:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has no chance of winning, regardless of what they present to the EU. The EU has already found them guilty. It appears what the EU does best is extort money from American companies. Apple will not be far behind. How did it help the consumer when Microsoft was forced to sell that stupid "N" version of XP without media player? Literally no one bought it. I thought fighting a monopoly was supposed to help the consumer? The EU doesn't give a rat's behind about the consumer. I'm an American, but don't bleed red, white, and blue, and am fairly critical of our greedy, corrupt society. I just call this one as I see it.


RE: Precedence....
By afkrotch on 3/13/2008 12:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
Wait til Microsoft has to make a Vista with no firewall, media player, internet browser, or any other built in software. Might as well get rid of wordpad, notepad, calculator, clock, defragger, burning utilities, themes, etc.

Wonder how long til Apple gets sued for doing exactly what Microsoft is doing. Bundling extra software. Course probably won't happen, as Apple fits in with some of the Euro pompous nature. I'll leave out the UK, cause they don't seem to give out that "I'm better than you are" vibe like other EU countries.


RE: Precedence....
By nofranchise on 3/13/2008 12:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes - the well known pompous nature of continental Europeans. It is somewhat sad though that the more classic - yet at the moment apparently unpopular - British stiff upper lip has lost it's glow.


Sad Part
By tmouse on 3/12/2008 12:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well unfortunately even though these activities "protect" the consumer "in the long term", the end result is generally higher prices. Although I have heard a lot of the accusations of Intel threatening VARs with "don’t use AMD or else" I have not seen ANY real substantiation of this. There HAS been evidence that they tied the availability of hot new products with purchase levels of older materials. This is also uncompetitive when you are in the position of Intel or Microsoft. One of the requirements may in fact be a limit to the extent Intel can offer discounts to VARs which will lead to higher prices. This may be good news for AMD but not so for end users. By and large AMD's current problems are mostly from their own BAD management and I do not see that changing much under the current structure. I'm no Intel fanboy (I have had more AMD systems than Intel) but AMD's problems will not magically go away. Also I do not feel the EU should be able to base fines on GLOBAL income, it should be just based on EU income. If every country did that I do not think ANY company could survive.




RE: Sad Part
By Ananke on 3/12/2008 1:22:01 PM , Rating: 1
EU started using Linux based and other GPL software years ago, to cut budget expenses and to somehow support the open source community. Now, almost ten years later after the German government adopted SUSE, we start to see that open source popularity eated large enough marketshare, so Microsoft has to slush with 30% Vista price, in attempt to sell it better. So, why do you think antimonopoly policy and support for free market is not better for the consumer?
And if international business operations affect revesrably the EU, yes they will try to fine a company over its international business operations, not just the European part. Also, there are certain international courts, where eventual disputes over EU judgement might be brought. If Intel wants the case can be brought to international arbiter. If they loose there though, would be a precedent, and other international sides, like USA and China shall abide its decision. Just think, why Microsoft didn't plead arbitrage to United Nation or WTO, yet it agree to pay 2.5 billion?


RE: Sad Part
By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
So why didn't they jump on the AMD bandwagon at the same time? I've heard Linux runs on both....


RE: Sad Part
By michael67 on 3/12/2008 9:27:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also I do not feel the EU should be able to base fines on GLOBAL income, it should be just based on EU income.

This is always being high-lighted, but the EU law had set limits to its self ware US law correct if i am wrong doesn't have these limits.
It could actual give a fine to a company mouths higher then 10%

And that 10% global has also more a trethning effect to companies to do what they are told,
And for as long as i can remember, only MS was the only company ware in the press it was even suggested, that if they don't complain again it could run up to the 10% limit.

Here in the EU maximum penalties are really given to companies and private people.
Ware in the EU fines and punishment are seen as a corrective measure to stop unwanted behavior.
Ware in the US its used to just punish the guilty for what they have done, often by asking for the maximum penalty possible.

I don't now what system is better but we have less crime and less people in jail, but we are going the wrong way to .


European Union...
By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 1
...is that anything like the Soviet Union?

Why such stink about capitalism?




RE: European Union...
By nofranchise on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: European Union...
By pauluskc on 3/12/2008 12:16:07 PM , Rating: 4
geeeeeez. laws are laws. You are right. I am wrong. You are so right, it's amazing, really.

I could care less about Intel. I could care less about MS. I could care less about the EU. I could care less about the US.

All I cared about was the fines. Where do the fines go?


RE: European Union...
By nofranchise on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: European Union...
By pauluskc on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: European Union...
By mikeyD95125 on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: European Union...
By michael67 on 3/12/2008 10:14:01 PM , Rating: 1
It is clear that Americans don't wane see other peoples views and only look at there own way of life as being the best.
And not even willing to listen to some one trying to explain how the system works by voting "nofranchise" explanation to -1

If you set your mind to that the other is wrong and your right you can never have a discussion.

you can also not see that some else's way of life isn't that bad and they are just people who dissuaded to live by other rules.

I see mouths more hatred to to the EU then the other way around.

And also the feeling we saved you in WOII you should be grateful.
Ware it was the french that actual one of the nations that helped the US to be a independent country.
And as a gift for celebrating your well earned freedom gave you your national symbol, the liberty statue.

I am not a fan of the french far from it but if i ware a 3th world country i would rather do business whit the french then the US,
Just because the french have a reputation in the world of after saying A also doing B even if it was done by the ope-side party, and even if its not convenient anymore.

A good example of what i mean is shown in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" about the secret war against the communist in Afghanistan, and after spending billions of dollars to fight the bad commies and a incredible high dead toll on afghanis side,
The people there ware left to rot ware the US had the biggest chance in history to make it a real pro US/western oriented country.

The reason the US got suths a bad name in the world is, is because ass longs as my goal is the same as the US it will be my best friend but the moment its done you get dropped.

But whats the point of me trying to let see the other side when i for shore are going to be voted -1 because its not the popular point of view.


RE: European Union...
By afkrotch on 3/13/08, Rating: 0
Better product
By Calin on 3/12/2008 11:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Mr. Otellini addressed Hearing Officer Karen Williams, arguing that Intel's financial practices were well within the law and that its success was from having a better product, not illegal maneuvers."

Intel now certainly have the better product - yet, from the launch of the K7 processor until the launch of the Core2 architecture, it didn't had the better product (or it had a better product just by a tiny bit).
If Intel did (or does) illegal things with its monopoly, it will get fined so hard it won't apply such practices.

(I can dream, don't I?)




Raise your bats people!
By nofranchise on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Raise your bats people!
By Parhel on 3/12/2008 5:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Man, you sure called that one.


By kilkennycat on 3/12/2008 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
For just one example:-
Intel is currently investing ~ $3billion in building an additional new fab in Ireland (a member of the EU for those a little foggy on their political geography). A $3billion fine might have some small effect on that investment. Intel has made huge investments in Europe, especially Ireland, over the past 20 years or so, with enormous commercial and academic benefit to those communities where the company has invested. Intel was amongst the first of many "foreign" companies to make very large investments in Ireland, thanks to some far-sighted generous tax-breaks by the Irish government, together with the excellent academics offfered by Irish universities and other institutes of higher education. Intel's arrival in Ireland sowed the initial seeds of the current Irish growth phenomenon called the Celtic Tiger.




By donnor on 3/12/2008 2:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
People posting here would be sort of ignorant to think that the competition has no role in these reports of anti-trust issues.

I am sure all those who are looking for the piece of the pie are just shooting off reports to any and all agencies that will hear them.

If Intel is in the wrong so be it, but I would be very inclined to believe also that AMD and others have a hand in this more than what is being read into it. But if they did nothing then I still believe more is going on here than a simple Gov review. This goes for the EU and the States.

As far as where the money goes, this is a very good question, I am not a fan of Governments basically sueing for money, and not fully distributing the funds amongs the parties that may very well be directly influenced by the alleged activity. BUT not to go into the counrties coffers, there seems to be a bit of conflict there. How is the EU actually damaged in such a case? I would say its not and they have no business benefiting from it.

Its like the lawyers that take on cases for large settlements, loose but it does not matter they still get their overly inflated fees, so it does not really matter if they win or loose, just that they got the case to begin with.




Off topic
By guy007 on 3/12/2008 6:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I know its not quite the same but it made me laugh

quote:
Fines can be up to 10% of a company's global revenue, under EU business law.


Thats less than what ebay charges me every time I make a sale!




By Pjotr on 3/14/2008 11:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Top Ten companies fined by EU (most European!):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/27/mic...

USA fined British Airways and Korean Air:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-23...

USA house insurance industry fined repeatedly:
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20051221_anticompet...

Australia fines Woolworth:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1816825.htm

Canada, multiple cases ending in fines:
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic/site/cb-bc...

Singapore:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelo...

New Zeeland:
http://www.comcom.govt.nz/BusinessCompetition/Anti...

South Africa:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=292...

It's a common problem in business, the only difference with Intel is it's a very big and famous company.




It's simple bribery
By Kyanzes on 3/14/2008 8:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
Come on. Think for one second. No one is playing jokes on anyone here. Microsoft (or any other company, like Intel) isn't paying a fine here. They simply pay a bribe to the EU so they can continue with the violation. The $2B Microsoft payed is simply the price they pay for the EU securing their monopoly. It's that freaking simple. Don't be naive.




About time
By 325hhee on 3/12/2008 12:12:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'm glad to hear something is getting done about Intel's illegal practices. It's a fact that Intel has paid off or threaten companies like Dell, not to sell AMD products, or they'd have some kind of backlog of chips to provide to them.

People that worked in retail knows what kind of shady company Intel is, but they're more recognized than AMD, and defunct companies like Cyrix, and other chip makers. Intel has been the bully since the dawn of the split of Intel/AMD. And there's still a lot of bad blood between them, it's a Hatfield and McCoy feud that they have for AMD.

I will admit Intel of late has the better processor, but if it weren't for their threat to resellers to not market AMD lines of computers, they would not have the revenue or staff they do now. From the P3 to the first dual cores AMD has out performed Intel by large margins, and now that AMD is struggling, it's harder for them to do more advanced R&D and with the poor upper management with AMD, they really took a huge hit.

Hopefully more AMDs will be sold in Europe now, and they can regain some of what they lost. Just keep in mind, if Intel had the monopoly on CPUs, do you honestly think they'd really put so much into quad or oct core processors? No, they'd rest on their laurels and just rake in the cash like a fat pig.

Competition drives companies to make better products, and they only have one major competitor, if AMD folds or gets acquired by Intel, we would not see the next gen in computing for as long as Intel decides to move.




intel
By adam92682 on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: intel
By Cygni on 3/12/2008 11:39:13 AM , Rating: 4
You are a business master!


RE: intel
By Calin on 3/12/2008 12:19:45 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, Intel will abandon a market from where they get a fifth or more of their profits...
Next great idea? What if Intel gets fined in USA? It should abandon american market too?


RE: intel
By Apoxie on 3/12/2008 12:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Intel should abandon any and all markets. Then nobody could object to their business practice! Brilliant plan.


RE: intel
By daftrok on 3/12/2008 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 1
Its such a stupid idea its retarded.


RE: intel
By rudolphna on 3/12/2008 1:37:37 PM , Rating: 1
what a moronic statement, and very immature. not only would that hurt the people of europe, it would hurt Intel substantially. As others have said, Intel gets a large portion of its profits from Europe. Oh, and have you ever heard of the word "monopoly"? which is what it would be, with Intel being the only supplier of mainstream CPUs in Europe. (sorry, VIA sucks, and doesnt count :D)


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki