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

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)


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles













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