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 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.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













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