Intel Claims Flawed Evidence in $1.3 billion EU Antitrust Case

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Anonymous_26[/nom]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.[/citation]

There's a huge difference between being an "idealistic hippy" and being fair. If you've seen what you say you have, then you've seen things that shouldn't be done. I suppose people such as George Washington and many other such men are nothing but idealistic hippies just because they saw problems and went out to solve them when they felt that it became necessary? I won't pretend that I've done nearly as much as they have for such a cause, but their cause and that which I'm currently arguing in favor of are nearly identical in concept. If you must bring it up, no, I don't even know the words to that song, nor did I even know of it, so signing it would be rather difficult without at least first reading or hearing the words, although I doubt that I'd sing it anyway. I'm not much of a singer and I'm not a dancer at all.

I also said nothing about getting along. I could want to decapitate someone sitting next to me, but so long as I don't, I've still acted within fairness unless I do something else that isn't right. Getting along actually has little to nothing to do with what I've said. You simply want to look for excuses to distort me into something that I'm not. Sorry, but you won't find a way to prove me wrong nor to slander me into submission just because you refuse to accept what is right in front of you. You might want to make me into a fool, but you'll have to do better than that in order to accomplish such a worthless goal.

Like I said, a world isn't cut-throat. Only what is within it can make it that way. If people want it to be cut-throat, then they can treat it in such a way, but the world itself is still not what is cut-throat. That would be the people and such within it. I can see and fully understand that many people treat the business world as such, but that world is not that, this is only how they treat it. It doesn't need to be that way, therefor the world is not that way, it is only treated as such by the cut-throats whom dwell within it.

 

[Anonymous_26]

ugh..if you haven't gotten it by now you never will.

 

[blazorthon]

ugh..if you haven't gotten it by now you never will.

I think that I understand what you're saying more than well enough. However, what you're saying seems to be blatantly wrong, so I disagree with it and have given what I think is some very specific and detailed reasoning as to why I consider it wrong. You could at least do the courtesy of trying to see what I'm saying as I have seen what you're saying, not that you seem to care about such concepts anyway and thus I don't expect you to regardless of what I or anyone else says. You can argue all you want, but if someone tries to tell someone that the Earth is flat and not a more or less spherical object and also probably not the center of the universe, then anyone who knows better won't agree with you no matter how much effort you put into trying to convince them.

 

[A Bad Day]

Intel has filed a 84-page document against the 542-page decision provided by the EU.

Not going to be a lawyer...

[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]

If I had all of my money in Intel's stocks and short selling AMD's stocks (gambling that the stocks crash), I would've been very, very happy.

But that's not the case, so I am against AMD getting pushed away.

 

[Anonymous_26]

My point is not that it's right but it's the way things are, like I said cut throat business practices started in the late 1800's and came to a head in the early 1900's. It hasn't changed by now and it's not going to change. Just like you aren't ever going to get rid of drugs. You ca do all the banning you want but it's not going to change anything, never has never will.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Anonymous_26[/nom]My point is not that it's right but it's the way things are, like I said cut throat business practices started in the late 1800's and came to a head in the early 1900's. It hasn't changed by now and it's not going to change. Just like you aren't ever going to get rid of drugs. You ca do all the banning you want but it's not going to change anything, never has never will.[/citation]

Well, considering that things are better than they once were (although arguably not better enough considering the time frames), I have to disagree. Change can often be very slow, but it happens nonetheless. How often do we lynch (or other such atrocities) people for being of a different skin color or religion in most of the more developed countries? We have much room for improvement, but we have come far, most certainly much farther than you seem to believe.

We might never completely get rid of such problems, but as I've already stated, that doesn't need to be a goal strictly because it may well be an in-achievable goal. However, the gift of perfection being always out of reach is that there is always room for improvement. The same is true about drug related problems. We have programs and people whom hunt down drug suppliers and manufacturers. Sure, they don't get everyone guilty of these crimes, but it's not like they get no one and let them all run free to spread their poisons to their heart's content.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[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]

Multiple companies have whats called exclusives with other companies products, where they only carry one companies products. McDonalds, the largest world wide fast food chain, only carries Coke products. No Pepsi or some local brand, just Coke.

It is well within a OEMs rights to sign a exclusivity contract and sell only AMD or only Intel based systems. At the same time, said company has to be able to meet the demand given by the OEM and if unable, well thats another story.

The payment Intel made was a payment to stop any fuirther legal proceedings. I don't remember the exact circumstances but I don't remember it being Intel claiming they did the wrong doings and were ceeding, more like Intel felt it was better to settle the matter with money that in the long run would cost far less than more court time.

Either way, AMD and Intel are over it and have moved forward. This EU fine was levied before any judgemet was made, so it does have some strange twist to it. I almost think it was the EUs way of getting free money. Add to the fact that the one running the investigation is from Germany, where AMDs only FAB (before they sold off to GF) presided and it makes you wonder if there wasn't a bit of bias to the fine.

 

[csbeer]

[citation][nom]Anonymous_26[/nom]My point is not that it's right but it's the way things are, like I said cut throat business practices started in the late 1800's and came to a head in the early 1900's. It hasn't changed by now and it's not going to change. Just like you aren't ever going to get rid of drugs. You ca do all the banning you want but it's not going to change anything, never has never will.[/citation]

You bring up "cut throat" several times and talk like a hardened warrior of competition and trade but yet fail to realize the societal costs of monopolistic abuses of power. Maybe you should read up on some Economic theory to go along with your "real world" experiences of "I've seen everything" :rollseyes: .

 

[hector2]

Bottom lined is that neither Intel nor AMD sells below cost and this is just plain hard competition. Consumers aren't harmed because prices keep falling. The EU Commission just needs to restock their bank account with more $$ to keep them afloat.

 

[kartu]

Wow, someone is defending Intel here.
Let me remind you, that AMD offered CPUs FOR FREE to Compaq.
Which the latter refused to take, saying "they (intel) bit us to it..."

PS
1bn that AMD received to settle over this is not even remotely adequate. Had it been 10 times more, I'd still doubt it really compansates for what AMD has lost as a result of Intel's uncompetitive practices.
Despite having superior AND CHEAPER products for years (Atholn64 vs Prescott) AMD couldn't gain much of the market share, because, oh, OEMs were afraid of the Intel's wrath...

 

[_Cubase_]

The EU economy is on the decline, so they slap Intel with a landmark fine, so not only is it a convenient time, but I just realized this whole sentence is a rhyme!

 

[reyshan]

[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]

Are you reading the article? It's across the America that they are suing Intel? Not your prideland

 

[AusVip3r]

If it wasn't for the EU courts, big companies would get away with so much crap that America lets slide and no war criminals would be brought to justice. But where does it go from here, is the next EU court the highest there is. Is there a UN court that sits atop the chain?

 

[Bloob]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Multiple companies have whats called exclusives with other companies products, where they only carry one companies products. McDonalds, the largest world wide fast food chain, only carries Coke products. No Pepsi or some local brand, just Coke. It is well within a OEMs rights to sign a exclusivity contract and sell only AMD or only Intel based systems. At the same time, said company has to be able to meet the demand given by the OEM and if unable, well thats another story.The payment Intel made was a payment to stop any fuirther legal proceedings. I don't remember the exact circumstances but I don't remember it being Intel claiming they did the wrong doings and were ceeding, more like Intel felt it was better to settle the matter with money that in the long run would cost far less than more court time.Either way, AMD and Intel are over it and have moved forward. This EU fine was levied before any judgemet was made, so it does have some strange twist to it. I almost think it was the EUs way of getting free money. Add to the fact that the one running the investigation is from Germany, where AMDs only FAB (before they sold off to GF) presided and it makes you wonder if there wasn't a bit of bias to the fine.[/citation]
Exclusive deals are okay in a situation where such deals are possible with more than one provider. The McDonalds example isn't comparable as it is actually reverse, if Coke had over 90% marketshare and 90% of that was sold through fast food chains, and Pepsi was unable to provide with enough soda to satisfy McDonalds' worldwide demand ( making McDonalds dependent on Coke ), then the situation would be similar. In that situation exlusive deals between Coke and fast food chains would pretty much force Pepsi to bankrupcy.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]hector2[/nom]Bottom lined is that neither Intel nor AMD sells below cost and this is just plain hard competition. Consumers aren't harmed because prices keep falling. The EU Commission just needs to restock their bank account with more $$ to keep them afloat.[/citation]

Prove it and then we'll see. Until then, making accusations and claiming that they are true instead of mere possibilities is misleading, at best.

 

[maqsabre]

"I'd like to draw your attention to Intel's latest advert calling them sponsors of tomorrow, now they are sponsors of the European taxpayer."

LOL

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Whatever Intel may or may not have done, the only certainty here is that parasites will get paid, without having produced anything of value for it.[/citation]
This isn't about patents....it's about Intel's unfair and illegal business practices from 1999 until 2006.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]_Cubase_[/nom]The EU economy is on the decline, so they slap Intel with a landmark fine, so not only is it a convenient time, but I just realized this whole sentence is a rhyme![/citation]
When the fine was actually issued, the EU was doing just fine. This case is 4 years old and Intel is still refusing to pay the damn fine.

 

[teh_chem]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Multiple companies have whats called exclusives with other companies products, where they only carry one companies products. McDonalds, the largest world wide fast food chain, only carries Coke products. No Pepsi or some local brand, just Coke. It is well within a OEMs rights to sign a exclusivity contract and sell only AMD or only Intel based systems. At the same time, said company has to be able to meet the demand given by the OEM and if unable, well thats another story.The payment Intel made was a payment to stop any fuirther legal proceedings. I don't remember the exact circumstances but I don't remember it being Intel claiming they did the wrong doings and were ceeding, more like Intel felt it was better to settle the matter with money that in the long run would cost far less than more court time.Either way, AMD and Intel are over it and have moved forward. This EU fine was levied before any judgemet was made, so it does have some strange twist to it. I almost think it was the EUs way of getting free money. Add to the fact that the one running the investigation is from Germany, where AMDs only FAB (before they sold off to GF) presided and it makes you wonder if there wasn't a bit of bias to the fine.[/citation]
Yes, but there were no exclusivity agreements. At the same time, Intel was essentially paying (incentivising) companies to stop using AMD CPUs in their products. I would easily call that unfair business practices when one company has the size and financial capabilities to support such behaviors while the other does not.

Regardless, I agree that AMD and Intel have moved past it, but the direct lawsuits between them are immaterial to government lawsuits against Intel. AMD may have been properly compensated for Intel's alleged breach of fair business practices, but it doesn't change the alleged breaches and potential illegal activity which Intel can still be fined for.

 

[spectrewind]

[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]

AMD needs a "killer product" to make them compete with Intel. Something like what happened in the 1990s with their Athlon slot1 that made the early P4 look bad for Intel. Without this, they will continue to be the budge processor line.

I see them going the way Cyrix did unless I hear about something great from them soon.

 

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]anonymous_26[/nom]If you want to be successful in American business, you have got to play dirty.[/citation]

Firstly, this is Europe. Secondly, had Intel not settled with AMD (including asking them to drop all other outstanding complaints), it would have been almost impossible for them to escape the same sort of treatment from the American courts.

Settling with your rival over alleged wrongdoings in order to avoid being ripped a new one does sound a little like admitting you're at fault. Legally, however, I'm not sure even that can be classed as an admission. Still, AMD sold what they produced, so it remains to be seen how much they needed to cut prices by in order to compete, and the resulting loss of revenue. Has anybody actually given any figures for this?

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]amuffin[/nom]At any time they can get AMD out of the CPU business. Just look at how far behind they are compared to Intel.[/citation]

um... even the worst amd cpu is good enough for damn near everything you do on a computer... amd may not be pushing it anymore, but do we really need that? i would say that over all the cpu side or processing is going to take a back seat soon, and we will move over to a gpu+cpu processing architectures. i mean look at how much the gpu helps common tasks and professional tasks. its in the eairly stages like threading was years ago, but soon... very soon... and amd will have the jump on intel, and leverage over nvidia, even if nvidia makes a more powerfull card.

[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]

we are going to make an insane rebate, something that will put us at an over all loss, just to stick it to amd, because we can eat that kind of a loss and feel nothing

or

push intel products, and you can get the rebate to offer, and dont bother mentioning amd.

both of those what comes to mind with something intel would do.

[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]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]

that's more along the lines of sponsoring. its hard to make the distinction, but i will try.

coke vs pepsi
you will never see one side tank and og out of business, there will never be a single monopoly, and thearters go along with this because of how screwed they are by movie companies... they dont get money from ticket sales in many cases, they make all their profit from concessions, and they take whoever makes them the best offer.

intel vs amd
intel uses its size to squeeze out competition, and has been fined for this numerous times in the past. ever wonder why, when amd had the better cpu, that they didnt get major sales? intel went and said if you dont use us exclusively, you no longer get the discounts.

i tryed to make a distinction between the two, but i probably failed.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]People didn't get ripped off, AMD got ripped off according to the EU. Intel gave REBATES dropping prices on CPU's, so in fact the 'people' got cheaper computers. How is that the consumer getting ripped off.I think that Intel should sue the EU for the cost of the rebates they issued. If the rebates were illegal, they should get that money back...[/citation]

If someone illegally gives me their money because I asked them to, I get caught, they don't get that money back. That would be rewarding accomplices in the crime. That shouldn't happen unless they were paramount in stopping Intel from doing illegal activity and that they did so willingly more or less from the start. That didn't happen, so they don't get rewarded.

 

[sonofliberty08]

if intel give rebates for their core-i7 when they r on top, i think is ok...... but intel pay rebates (or i say bride instead) to the manufacture for only use their crap when their P4 and PD sux big time and the AMD K8 beat them hard in performance, they r found guilty

 

[eddieroolz]

Intel can argue, but I think the evidence of Intel's coercion has been clear.