Intel Claims Flawed Evidence in $1.3 billion EU Antitrust Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]fb39ca4[/nom]They may or may not deserve this, but it would be terrible if they got AMD out of the CPU business.[/citation]
At any time they can get AMD out of the CPU business. Just look at how far behind they are compared to Intel.
 

Anonymous_26

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
336
0
10,810
10
I see nothing wrong with what they did. Rebates aren't monopolistic if they are then every company from Intel down to the local supermarket should be sued. Why does it put AMD at a disadvantage because they didn't think of it you ask me I call it smart business. I'm so sick of hearing people cry about Intel. “WAAA! WAAA! Intel is abusing their position! WAA! Their not playing fair! WAA! WAA!” You know what AMD and everyone else out there Get over it! If you want to be successful in American business, you have got to play dirty. Companies should play fair, but it doesn’t work that way. No one gets to the top in American business without playing dirty. If you can’t handle it then roll over and die already
 

erunion

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2011
192
0
18,690
1
Three prisoners were sitting in a jail, found guilty of "economic crimes" and were also comparing stories.
The first one said, "I charged higher prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of profiteering, monopolizing and exploiting consumers."

The second one said, "I charged lower prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing, cutthroat competing and under-charging."

The third prisoner said, "I charged the same prices as my competitors, and I was found guilty of collusion, price leadership and cartelization."
 

TeKEffect

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2009
170
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]erunion[/nom]Three prisoners were sitting in a jail, found guilty of "economic crimes" and were also comparing stories. The first one said, "I charged higher prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of profiteering, monopolizing and exploiting consumers." The second one said, "I charged lower prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing, cutthroat competing and under-charging." The third prisoner said, "I charged the same prices as my competitors, and I was found guilty of collusion, price leadership and cartelization."[/citation]

Ha I like that one. Not enough jokes in Toms comments
 
Doesn't AMD give small rebates to people whom buy new FX CPUs? I find it hard to call rebates monopolistic. Intel has done ill practices in the past and they may even be committing to such actions today, but I don't think that I'd call rebates one of them. I most certainly doubt that Intel would even risk letting AMD fail given the situation that Intel is in with the anti-trust lawsuits.
 
[citation][nom]Anonymous_26[/nom]I see nothing wrong with what they did. Rebates aren't monopolistic if they are then every company from Intel down to the local supermarket should be sued. Why does it put AMD at a disadvantage because they didn't think of it you ask me I call it smart business. I'm so sick of hearing people cry about Intel. “WAAA! WAAA! Intel is abusing their position! WAA! Their not playing fair! WAA! WAA!” You know what AMD and everyone else out there Get over it! If you want to be successful in American business, you have got to play dirty. Companies should play fair, but it doesn’t work that way. No one gets to the top in American business without playing dirty. If you can’t handle it then roll over and die already[/citation]

I didn't see anything in the article that so much as implied that AMD was whining. This looks like it was entirely the EU's choice. Furthermore, "playing dirty" is no excuse for illegal activity when it actually happens and this happens often, especially in the American business markets. If you can't at least almost always obey the laws, then you shouldn't be in business where those laws are in effect.
 

egmccann

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2010
106
0
18,680
0
For those asking why rebates are bad, I point you back to the article. Specifically, the word before "rebates" - namely, "unfair."

You have to dig back a few articles, but this is where it sounds like they say rebates get unfair:
Intel denies charges related to rebates offered as long as manufacturers agreed to obtain the majority of their processors from Intel as well as paying them to either to delay or cancel the launch of AMD based products.
So it's not just, say, 100% price for 1-5, 95% for 5-10, 90% for 10-20, 80% for 20-50 or some such (which is just a simplified progression for illustration,) but (say) 75% of cost "as long as you cancel the other guy's orders."
 
[citation][nom]egmccann[/nom]For those asking why rebates are bad, I point you back to the article. Specifically, the word before "rebates" - namely, "unfair." You have to dig back a few articles, but this is where it sounds like they say rebates get unfair:So it's not just, say, 100% price for 1-5, 95% for 5-10, 90% for 10-20, 80% for 20-50 or some such (which is just a simplified progression for illustration,) but (say) 75% of cost "as long as you cancel the other guy's orders."[/citation]

Well, now that would be unfair, monopolistic, and deserving of such a fine as the EU's ~$1.3B fine.
 

jamie_1318

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2010
188
0
18,710
5
For people who don't understand why rebates can be monopolistic, it's not all that complicated.

Because Intel is a large and mature company, it can lower prices to cost and prevent any one else from getting into the business and force others out of the business. Obviously this isn't a fair thing to do because once it's finished Intel can assume a monopoly and suppress competition. The whole idea of the rule is to ensure fair competition between companies and an open market.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Doesn't AMD give small rebates to people whom buy new FX CPUs? I find it hard to call rebates monopolistic. Intel has done ill practices in the past and they may even be committing to such actions today, but I don't think that I'd call rebates one of them. I most certainly doubt that Intel would even risk letting AMD fail given the situation that Intel is in with the anti-trust lawsuits.[/citation]

The difference is that Intel's are given out to OEMs on mass, and are likely larger rebates, plus Intel is the larger company.


Whether this fine is legitimate or not is another issue altogether and I have no idea whether they are fair charges or not.
 

Anonymous_26

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
336
0
10,810
10
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I didn't see anything in the article that so much as implied that AMD was whining. This looks like it was entirely the EU's choice. Furthermore, "playing dirty" is no excuse for illegal activity when it actually happens and this happens often, especially in the American business markets. If you can't at least almost always obey the laws, then you shouldn't be in business where those laws are in effect.[/citation]

Please that's such a load. You are living in an idealistic fantasy world. You aren't going to stop it and you don't get on top by playing nice in the business world. It's a cut throat world and you do what you have to be on top. Like I said if you can't handle it roll over and die already.
 

andy_newton

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2009
112
0
18,680
0
Just ban Intel from doing any business in EU countries until the fine is paid--End of story.

No further need to put more money in Lawyers' pockets.
 
[citation][nom]Anonymous_26[/nom]Please that's such a load. You are living in an idealistic fantasy world. You aren't going to stop it and you don't get on top by playing nice in the business world. It's a cut throat world and you do what you have to be on top. Like I said if you can't handle it roll over and die already.[/citation]

Giving in to needless savagery just because you are too lethargic about it to actually get off your ass and do something about it, no matter how small, is inexcusable, not that you'd actually care enough about being excused for your intentional ignorance and apparent laziness about this problem. We're sentient beings, at least more or less, not mindless insects. If you don't want to act like it, then you could at least do the courtesy of not acting like it's justified or even worse, that it should be acceptable that it's not justified, yet you don't mind it anyway.

I don't mean to offend, but you're the one living in a fantasy world. The difference is that you don't see to care about improving anything, but I at least recognize and accept the existence of the issues, even if I don't go about forcing change on everyone involved. Your "roll over and die already" idea seems to be more like what you're doing given the circumstances. The world isn't cut-throat at all, but some of the people within it are. They are the problem and the problem can be solved if people put enough effort into the right places. However, humanity seems to be eternally bounded with greed and corruption, so it's not like we can get rid of these issues permanently, but that's no excuse for doing nothing about them.

Regardless, philosophizing isn't really the point of this article, nor should it be. This sort of thing shouldn't need to be explained because it should not only already be known, but it should be unnecessary. If Intel is truly doing something illegal, then there should be consequences of some sort for it and no one's philosophical ideals should change that fact nor should they change the specific consequences unless there is something wrong with the law. The world is arguably unfair, but we should combat this by attempting to at least be fair to each other. The punishment should fit the crime without violating any rights that a person is given by our laws. This is probably not an easy way out of this, but the easy ways are not necessarily the right ways and should not be treated as such unless that is what they are.

Point is that without even including basic philosophy in the equation, Intel should be fairly investigated on this matter. If they are found guilty of overly monopolistic practices, then they should be treated accordingly and as the laws permit. Given Intel's history of known monopolistic practices, they might be engaging in actions that aren't legal or shouldn't be legal and there's nothing wrong with suspecting them. If they truly are, then they already know their consequences, at least to an extent, thanks to the EU.

Perhaps you forget that getting on top of the business world should not be as important as doing so without screwing other people over in the process. The entire foundations for countries such as the USA were on fair business practices and if businesses can't abide by them, then they should be treated as the laws requires.
 

Anonymous_26

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
336
0
10,810
10
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Giving in to needless savagery just because you are too lethargic about it to actually get off your ass and do something about it, no matter how small, is inexcusable, not that you'd actually care enough about being excused for your intentional ignorance and apparent laziness about this problem. We're sentient beings, at least more or less, not mindless insects. If you don't want to act like it, then you could at least do the courtesy of not acting like it's justified or even worse, that it should be acceptable that it's not justified, yet you don't mind it anyway.I don't mean to offend, but you're the one living in a fantasy world. The difference is that you don't see to care about improving anything, but I at least recognize and accept the existence of the issues, even if I don't go about forcing change on everyone involved. Your "roll over and die already" idea seems to be more like what you're doing given the circumstances. The world isn't cut-throat at all, but some of the people within it are. They are the problem and the problem can be solved if people put enough effort into the right places. However, humanity seems to be eternally bounded with greed and corruption, so it's not like we can get rid of these issues permanently, but that's no excuse for doing nothing about them.Regardless, philosophizing isn't really the point of this article, nor should it be. This sort of thing shouldn't need to be explained because it should not only already be known, but it should be unnecessary. If Intel is truly doing something illegal, then there should be consequences of some sort for it and no one's philosophical ideals should change that fact nor should they change the specific consequences unless there is something wrong with the law. The world is arguably unfair, but we should combat this by attempting to at least be fair to each other. The punishment should fit the crime without violating any rights that a person is given by our laws. This is probably not an easy way out of this, but the easy ways are not necessarily the right ways and should not be treated as such unless that is what they are.Point is that without even including basic philosophy in the equation, Intel should be fairly investigated on this matter. If they are found guilty of overly monopolistic practices, then they should be treated accordingly and as the laws permit. Given Intel's history of known monopolistic practices, they might be engaging in actions that aren't legal or shouldn't be legal and there's nothing wrong with suspecting them. If they truly are, then they already know their consequences, at least to an extent, thanks to the EU.Perhaps you forget that getting on top of the business world should not be as important as doing so without screwing other people over in the process. The entire foundations for countries such as the USA were on fair business practices and if businesses can't abide by them, then they should be treated as the laws requires.[/citation]

That was the longest most pointless post so far and does nothing to prove your point. I would love to know what you do for a living because I can't see how you can't see the business world as cut throat. I've seen everything from companies doing whatever it takes to get on top to workers back stabbing each other to get a higher position and more money. Lol change it, take a history lesson this has been going on for over 100 years and it hasn't changed yet and it's not going to change. Do some reading on how the Sherman Anti Trust laws came in to effect and exactly why. You sound like a idealistic hippy that thinks we can change the world if everyone just got along. Next you'll start singing Imagine by Lennon.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
17
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Doesn't AMD give small rebates to people whom buy new FX CPUs? I find it hard to call rebates monopolistic. Intel has done ill practices in the past and they may even be committing to such actions today, but I don't think that I'd call rebates one of them. I most certainly doubt that Intel would even risk letting AMD fail given the situation that Intel is in with the anti-trust lawsuits.[/citation]
There's a big difference between offering retail rebates to consumers vs. giving "preferred" pricing to OEMs based on their decisions to use the competitor's CPUs in other products.

Didn't Intel pay AMD something like $1B in a US lawsuit over this, back in 2009? As a settlement? I wonder how the "quality" of evidence in this case differs from the US case. I know there wasn't an actual verdict, but apparently the evidence was sufficient to lead to a $1B+ settlement in that case...what's different now? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is getting the money...
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
1,497
43
19,320
3
You should try going to a theater and ordering a Mt. Dew. Oh wait, you can't because Coke has paid the theater to not use anyone else's product but it's own.

And that's totally cool?
 
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]There's a big difference between offering retail rebates to consumers vs. giving "preferred" pricing to OEMs based on their decisions to use the competitor's CPUs in other products.Didn't Intel pay AMD something like $1B in a US lawsuit over this, back in 2009? As a settlement? I wonder how the "quality" of evidence in this case differs from the US case. I know there wasn't an actual verdict, but apparently the evidence was sufficient to lead to a $1B+ settlement in that case...what's different now? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is getting the money...[/citation]

That's a good point. Intel most certainly does have a history of monopolistic practices and I'm not going to defend them on this topic (especially with some details of the current iteration of this being somewhat obscure) if it comes to that.
 

ashinms

Honorable
Feb 19, 2012
155
0
10,680
0
That was the longest most pointless post so far and does nothing to prove your point. I would love to know what you do for a living because I can't see how you can't see the business world as cut throat. I've seen everything from companies doing whatever it takes to get on top to workers back stabbing each other to get a higher position and more money. Lol change it, take a history lesson this has been going on for over 100 years and it hasn't changed yet and it's not going to change. Do some reading on how the Sherman Anti Trust laws came in to effect and exactly why. You sound like a idealistic hippy that thinks we can change the world if everyone just got along. Next you'll start singing Imagine by Lennon.
Control your anger, you must.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS