backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by overcast.. on Jan 21 at 1:58 PM

Executives involved in the case get fines and prison terms of up to nine months

The LCD industry was rocked by a scandal in late 2008 when executives from some of the largest panel makers in the world pled guilty to conspiring to fix prices. The price fixing led to inflated costs for displays used by firms like Dell in its notebook computers.

In November of 2008, executives from Sharp, LG, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes all pled guilty to price fixing. The largest fine imposed was placed on LG and totaled $400 million with Sharp said to be paying $85 million in fines.

Today reports are coming in that in addition to the fines levied against the corporations; the executives that participated in the scheme are being individually fined and sentenced to prison time here in America.

DigitalTrends reports that the former Chairman and CEO of Chunghwa, Chieng-Hon Lin was hit with an individual fine of $50,000 and a sentence of 9-months in an American prison. The other executives involved in the scandal received prison terms ranging from six to nine months each.

Deborah A. Garza, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, said in a statement, "These cases involve the first Taiwanese nationals to face imprisonment in the United States for an antitrust offense. The Department of Justice is committed to holding accountable all conspirators who harm American consumers, no matter where they live or where they commit the crime."



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Regional cable monopolies
By metasin on 1/20/2009 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 5
I believe the difference is that those cable monopolies were created in conjunction with the state and local governments.


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By Solandri on 1/20/2009 3:53:25 PM , Rating: 5
I don't have a problem with that. But I remember in Boston the issue went to court because Continental Cablevision (now Time Warner I believe) contracted to provide service to something like 95% of Boston in exchange for a monopoly. The 5% was supposed to account for locations which were too difficult to wire up, or which lacked sufficient infrastructure to add cable (e.g. old apartment buildings with no easy way to add cable to each unit).

The city expected that 5% to be scattered throughout. Instead, Continental "saved up" the 5% and used almost all of it on the entire Chinatown district. The area is primarily lower income, and most of the customers there would've gotten just the basic packages, not the bread and butter pay channels. So they got their monopoly, and they didn't cover one of the city's districts, and they blocked the city from hiring anyone else to give the area coverage.


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By 16nm on 1/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Regional cable monopolies
By FITCamaro on 1/20/2009 4:12:00 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. The federal government mandated those monopolies. All in an effort to "increase competition". Apparently when the federal government gets involved, competition means "you have one choice".


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By foolsgambit11 on 1/20/2009 7:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
If the federal government mandated that cable providers had to share their infrastructure (a common carrier arrangement, like with phones) it was assumed that would delay development of the communications infrastructure. A company won't invest in a big capital project unless it looks like they'll get their money's worth. The federal government did what it does best - it helped shape the market by creating economic incentives. There will most likely come a time when the government will mandate shared use of the infrastructure, following an arc similar to the deregulation of the telephone system. That time may be upon us, or it may not - there are still constant updates to the infrastructure to boost data rates. Once we've pretty much maximized the data carrying capacity, not just of the coax link to each person's house, but to each hub in the network, then deregulation will make sense - after, of course, the cable companies have payed off their investment in that infrastructure development through protected operation.


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By jay401 on 1/20/2009 11:23:26 PM , Rating: 4
" The federal government did what it does best "

What it "does best" is meddle in the marketplace and ruin natural competition, which results in exactly this type of impropriety.


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By xsilver on 1/21/2009 7:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
wasnt the OPs point though that had the government not meddled at all, nobody would have cable because no company would want to invest in infrastructure without knowing return investment.


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By Regs on 1/21/2009 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, like when Bill Clinton "made" all those loan Co's approve all those low-income mortgages. They should make policy expiration dates - similar to their own patent laws. Times change and they forget their policies havent.


RE: Regional cable monopolies
By foolsgambit11 on 1/20/2009 7:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree that it looks like collusion may be at work among the cable companies with coverage areas. But it need not be collusion. When there's already a cable provider in a region, it doesn't make much sense to another cable provider to invest in all of the infrastructure needed to compete with the first company. It's just good business sense not to enter saturated markets.

If the government mandated some kind of common carrier licensing system, so that the cable cables were available to competing providers, then you could blame the cable companies. But for now, you'd have to blame the government's policies, which were put in place to protect cable companies' heavy capital investments.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher











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