Intel Claims EU Fine Violates Human Rights

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Slight side-comment here.

Computer components aren't more expensive in the EU due to companies being fined, they are more expensive due to the dollar currently being stronger than the euro and the generally higher taxes.

For example, here in Sweden the VAT is 25% for computer components. As compared to what, 7-15% in the US?

Also, I'd wager online stores shift an order of magnitude less inventory in a country with 9 million citizens than one with 300 million. Which needless to say will also affect pricing.
 
Intel is a capitalist company. Their main goal is to eliminate as much competition in order to gain maximum profit. Under the rule of Euro socialism, this does not apply.
 
Without laws governing what's fair competitive practices, and penalties for breaking those laws, the only companies that could actually profit would be those into arms manufacturing.
 
Believe it or not.. Corporations in the US have "human rights".. It was granted to them by an amendment.. Its just that if you looked at what corporations do and they were a person. You would probably seem them as on par with a serial murderer.. Since they only have one goal and its to make money. To tingle with the line of the law is something corporations do everyday..
 
@Phantom Trooper

The fine that the EU is imposing on Intel happened during a period of time that AMD did have the better product. There was a period of about 12 to 18 months that AMD had the fastest processor, and not just in GHz either.

Intel knew this so they used their influence to get companies to delay or not use AMD processors. If you notice it wasn't until after the Core 2 was out that Dell started really promoting that they had AMD processors also, but then it was too late the AMD processor was not the fastest.

Ask yourself another question. If Intel had the faster processor, why would they need to talk companies into delaying AMD processor based products?
 
While I would like to agree with part of your troll comment demonhorde "whoa re they to cry foul on this when they lay off workers all teh time jsut so thier executives don't lose a little bank" (kept typos on purpose) thats just not reality.

Yeah some companies out there could easily get away with not laying off workers, and others are downright corrupt. The fact is most companies do it because of:

1. To save money during hard times
2. So the company doesn't go under.

Scenario: Company A has 3000 workers and hits really hard times in this economy. So company A decides to lay off 1000 workers to weather hard times. People cry fowl and such as they always do but the fact of the matter is if they didn't lay off those workers they could have gone bankrupt and laid off their entire workforce. People would be yelling even more then. People in the entire world need to use their brains some before they open their mouths.

Also and I could be mistaken here Corporations have Human Rights because they are treated as actual individuals now. This helps limit the owners/executives/CEO's/Stock Holders/etc against most of the frivolous law suits that are brought against them and limits their liability if the company goes under. Sometimes companies go under, not because of bad management, but because of bad circumstances and its not right to hold individuals accountable for the bad minority.
 
Sorry I meant "hold individuals accountable because of the bad minority." not for. (referring back to the bad management comment made one line earlier).

Really wish we could edit comments
 
Also off topic: I just found a major bug in the comment system. It is probably already well known but if you click thumbs up on your own post then log in it counts the vote.
 
Reading the comments, it's pretty sad how some readers don't get it. This isn't about "capitalism vs. socialism" or some kind of money-grab by the EU. Regardless of what you think about the Microsoft cases, Intel pretty egregiously violated the law here, and that's the issue the EU fined them over. I wonder how many people calling this ruling unfair or grumbling over the EU enforcing anti-competition laws would also be outraged if they found out their own government representatives were being bribed to pass laws that hurt your rights for the enrichment of some company. That's pretty much what Intel did, except instead of bribing the government they bribed OEM companies specifically to NOT OFFER OR SELL any AMD systems, artificially reducing their competitiveness and inflating the market for Intel chips. You may think capitalist ideals favor companies who can afford to spend money and break the law to gain marketshare, but that's actually fundamentally against the ideals of free trade and competition in the marketplace because it doesn't ensure that the best product wins, it ensures that the company with the deepest pockets and fewest scruples wins regardless of the market demand for their product. That's why it's called "anti-competitive" behavior. The reason these are generally illegal, whether it's in the EU or the US (yes, we have anti-competition laws too) is because this is a losing situation for the customers and the otherwise competitive companies' products. If you're arguing that the EU shouldn't enforce anti-competition laws, as it has done here, you're really arguing against healthy capitalism and for greater corporate control over your daily lives.
I'm seriously trying to understand the backlash I see here: Intel broke the law in a way that hurt both the market for consumers and its competitor, but the EU was in the wrong to levy a fine against them for doing that?
 
danelaw
You Americans really need to get out of your Bush area "us and them " mentality.. EU is not about going after big evil American company’s.. big evil European company’s get exactly the same treatment, you just have a very narrow gaze on the world.
Since all I ever read about in Tom's, The Register, Ars Technica, &c are cases where the EU is fining US companies in the order of 100s of millions of dollars is it any wonder why our impression may be what it is?

To help broaden our field of view on these matter, it would be helpful if you could supply us some links where the EU has taken similarly large fine actions actions with European countries?
 
[citation][nom]otacon[/nom]Face facts people...AMD will never beat Intel at anything. AMD has been relegated to the low-mid level computer market with Intel being kind of the hill. Been that way for a while now and it's never going to change. Give me thumb downs all you want I don't care. Even THD's blatant bias doesn't fly anymore because Intel chips completely trounce AMD's.Do I want AMD to go away? Of course not...they keep Intel's prices in line. AMD ruined my beloved ATI. I always had an All-in-Wonder board in the machines I built even though NVIDIA boards were usually slightly faster. Now it's just sad... ATI is no more as far as I'm concerned. The EU is just pathetic...they have a hard-on for going after anything from across the pond. I love how Microsoft is forcing the EU to do a clean install of W7..I cried I laughed so hard when I heard. The EU thought they had them by the short and curlys until Microsoft b*tch slapped the EU and walked away...haha[/citation]

Ever heard of the Athlon FX?
 
[citation][nom]sailfish[/nom]Since all I ever read about in Tom's, The Register, Ars Technica, &c are cases where the EU is fining US companies in the order of 100s of millions of dollars is it any wonder why our impression may be what it is?

To help broaden our field of view on these matter, it would be helpful if you could supply us some links where the EU has taken similarly large fine actions actions with European countries?[/citation]
They fined French and German natural gas companies about €100 million more than they did Intel, just this month.The largest fine they ever levied for illegal trusts was 1.4 billion last year, for a cartel of French/British/Belgian/Japanese glass makers. Apparently they've started really putting the screws to anti-competitive behavior in recent years. Think of it like the sudden US crackdown on organized crime that took place during the roarin' twenties if you need an analogy.
Here's a helpful resource if you want to check their recent cases for yourself. It's somewhat understandable that we in the US haven't heard as much about that stuff, but I'd think common sense should have one hold off on the 'persecution complex' without having more evidence. I find it kind of silly that your preferred default position is that the EU is picking on American companies out of proportion to their crimes compared to companies from other nations, rather than a spark of interest into whom else they might be fining and how much.
Rather than assume these cases are the only big things going on, it's safer to assume that these cases are only the ones you're likely to hear about. That can be due to a couple of factors such as US coverage of EU Commission activities (practically nil on any given day) or the tech-oriented nature of these cases, with exceptionally large fines levied against US-based tech companies that are themselves exceptionally large. If this were about natural gas companies, you wouldn't be reading about it on Tom's or Ars or The Register. If these were appropriately smaller fines against some Croatian soft/hardware makers, you also probably wouldn't hear much about it. So you're restricted to hearing about these MS/Intel cases for a number of reasons; from the niche news sites you visit to the scale of their crimes and punishments. It's pretty obvious if you stop and think about it that this is only a sliver of the cases being reviewed and that it's not at all representational of the whole EU Commission... thing. [vocabulary failure!]

For future reference of the general readership, since I see this kind of thing a lot in these EU Commission threads: If you really wanted to have an informed opinion going into these discussions, you could have justfuckinggoogle'd it. It's the official internet equivalent of "think before you open your mouth."
It took me about three minutes of Googling to find all the appropriate links here, and previously I only had exposure from the same Tom's/Ars/tech news sources which don't cover the other cases and fines. Even if I had assumed that the EU was picking on American companies (which I think is a ridiculous position to take anyway) I'd want to verify that assumption with some numbers before going off on an anti-EU Commission rant. Rather than leap to conclusions prematurly and run with them, it's a better idea to try and find out if your conclusion is realistic.
 
[citation][nom]lvlouro[/nom]In my point of view a clean install is even better than an upgrade!!!Who here doesn't love the performance you get out of a clean install...Most of the people who'll be upgrading to win7 will have been using there vista for years, by then a clean install will be just the right thing to do.Maybe it's just me but every time I've upgraded OSs eventually I had to do a clean install to get rid of all the trash it had been building up for years.It's more time consuming but is has it's benefits.Another thing, don't be so biased. Almost every comment here is biased by emotions, everyone as a right to like more a company but fair is fair.I've had intel, amd, nvidia, ati... I buy what's right for me, be it best performance, best bang for the buck, whatever.What's fair is fair, and if it's proven that intel broke EU anti-competition laws it has to pay up!!!Don't let your judgment be clouded by emotions...
When you do what you want, and don't care for the law it's not called capitalism, it's called ANARCHY. Get your facts straight.[/citation]


my point wasnt that doing whatever u want is capitalism. my point was that the eu has anti-capitalist laws.
 
[citation][nom]Xabbu4[/nom]@Phantom TrooperThe fine that the EU is imposing on Intel happened during a period of time that AMD did have the better product. There was a period of about 12 to 18 months that AMD had the fastest processor, and not just in GHz either.Intel knew this so they used their influence to get companies to delay or not use AMD processors. If you notice it wasn't until after the Core 2 was out that Dell started really promoting that they had AMD processors also, but then it was too late the AMD processor was not the fastest.Ask yourself another question. If Intel had the faster processor, why would they need to talk companies into delaying AMD processor based products?[/citation]

yea i know amd was faster before 2006. just because u have a faster product doesnt mean u dont wanna eliminate the competition. there will always be people who will buy inferior products becuase they r cheap. if u eliminate these inferior products the only option is your product. i dont have all the details on what intel did but it was probly morally wrong, but still very capitalistic. i all these excessive fines the eu is putting on companies will end up hurting the consumer and therefore the overall economy imo. also, wheres the fines for the companies that accepted these deals. if i offer to sell u drugs and u buy, were both in trouble not just me.
 
[[citation][nom]PhantomTrooper[/nom]my point wasnt that doing whatever u want is capitalism. my point was that the eu has anti-capitalist laws.[/citation]
They actually have laws that encourage a strong, healthy fair market. Anti-trust regulations are part of a fair market, otherwise companies feel free to form trusts, cartels, or abusive monopolies that make markets worse for the consumer and for competitors who would otherwise have a fair shot. We also have anti-trust laws in the US, and the Department of Justice is also looking into Intel's behavior (as they did with Microsoft years ago, and are looking at Google now).

citation][nom]PhantomTrooper[/nom]yea i know amd was faster before 2006. just because u have a faster product doesnt mean u dont wanna eliminate the competition. there will always be people who will buy inferior products becuase they r cheap.[/citation]
AMD's Athlon line not only outperformed the Pentium III/4's it went up against, it was also significantly cheaper. If not for Intel's strongarm tactics with OEMs, AMD would most likely have seen better sales since they had the better, cheaper product.

[citation]PhantomTrooper[nom][/nom]i dont have all the details on what intel did but it was probly morally wrong, but still very capitalistic. i all these excessive fines the eu is putting on companies will end up hurting the consumer and therefore the overall economy imo.[/citation]
Just because something is "capitalistic" doesn't mean it's good for the economy. The harmful nature of abusive monopolies and anti-competitive tactics is one of the major reasons they're illegal.
 
I totally refuse to have either Karl Marx or PhantomTrooper define "capitalistic". It's like calling theft, rape and pillage of common heritage "freedom".
Essentially the only thing that makes capitalism different from the old Soviet communist era oligarchy/state monopoly, in function, is the free market, a level playing field with fair competition and property rights. Only laws and upholding those laws, will provide that and can protect that. US is notably not upholding it's laws very well in later years.
Intel is privately owned, but frankly there's not much difference. They're clearly politically connected, and use force (persecutions/strong-arm tactics) to enforce their domination. Which leads me to say this: Intel is in function and harm much more a communist, Soviet style state monopoly than a "capitalistic" company. And certain persons are, correspondingly, much more akin to old communist political zealots, justifying all that with brainwashed, twisted, ideological drivel, than true champions of private enterprise and the free market.
 
Saying that the fine would hurt consumers and affect prices is just silly. If Intel thought it to be desirable to earn more money they would already do so (and believe me, they WILL! once they got rid of AMD). The prices lately have been entirely motivated by Intel's desire to keep AMD in red, as a preparation for the 2011 lawsuit. And Intel's shareholders have been poorly served by those tactics, at least in the short term.
That Intel first posted declining revenues during record sales, and now also post a loss, is due to the pressure they want to keep on AMD.
 
You know, i'm not an MS or Intel hater, and although IMO what intel did was within the confines of law, it wasn't an ethically sound business decision. That being said, a BILLION euro fine? Billion, seriously. Billion, thats a B, not an M. Are they absolutely nuts? Intel's net income in 2008 was roughly 5.3 billion dollars, this fine at current conversion rates translates to 2.054 billion USD. Thats almost half of the companies entire operating income.

The EU have lost their minds, utterly and completely with these fines.

Personally i don't understand why companies like MS and Intel, etc just tell the EU to eat sh*t and pull out altogether. If they get fined like this they can't possibly be making a profit.
 
Sorry, did a bit more research there, apparently they did break the law, or at least according to the findings of this Neelie Kroe guy. I'd be willing to bet his evidence wouldn't pass muster in a US court, but, it is the EU, where they get a hardon for screwing corporations because by some flawed socialist logic, the assumption is that all corporations are corrupt and evil, which couldnt be further from the truth.

I wonder how much the European population would start bitching when they no longer have access to a bunch of great, useful products from lots of companies like MS, Intel, and a host of other companies, if those companies simply chose not to sell their products in europe due to the draconian fining policies.
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]god f-ing idiots human rights lkaws only apply to individuals not massive international corperations . and whoa re they to cry foul on this when they lay off workers all teh time jsut so thier executives don't lose a little bank[/citation]
... thanks to US Laws a corporation can be seen as a person...
 
Intel is a CORPORATION! Since when do CORPORATIONS qualify for HUMAN rights?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.