Intel Facing Huge Fines from European Union

[pmt82]

And America is so squeaky clean...? Don't get me started!

 

[derzhus]

I'm sure all those top of the line multi-billion dollar(general term) a year home based computer OEM's based in the EU lost tons of money to Intel over this...NOT

Or maybe it was the IT / business class OEM's that took the hit...wait a minute business class computers don't use in any significant way AMD based servers because of years upon years of AMD producing inferior math co-processors, unacceptable failure rates and the inability to string together multiple processors with a sizable L1/2 cache.

If any country/region has a beef with Intels business model I would think it would be China/Taiwan and not the effectively non PC producing EU.

 

[croc]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Good, AMD should of definitely got a lot more market share in the 2-3 years it dominated Intel with it's Athlon 64s. Intel had to use some sketchy methods to stop that. Oh and before people call me a AMD fanboy, I'm using a i7 920 right now.[/citation]

AMD would've increased their market share, but they couldn't produce to meet the demand. Uncertainity of supply makes OEM's nervous...

 

[Guest]

You can tell the EU agenda by the lack of any investigation into the European distributors who ACCEPTED these rebates and went along with the "anti-competitive" behavior. Funny how such a moral part of the world would have companies that would go along with the rebates - could they not have turned them down? Where is their blame? Apparently the commission can easily turn a blind eye on the the EU companies TAKING PART IN, AND BENEFITING FROM, the 'anticompetitive behavior'.

Are any of these retailers being fined? NO.
Are any of these retailers being asked to give back the rebate money that was anticompetitive? No, of course not - that is money in the EU that can be taxed later!

So while folks can argue the EU is doing the right thing... where is the action on the other 1/2 of the story (the particpating EU distributors/retailers)?

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Good, AMD should of definitely got a lot more market share in the 2-3 years it dominated Intel with it's Athlon 64s. Intel had to use some sketchy methods to stop that. Oh and before people call me a AMD fanboy, I'm using a i7 920 right now.[/citation]

Did you ever stop to think about the fact that AMD had a much smaller manufacturing capability compared to Intel? They couldn't produce enough chips to feed the market demand. If you can't then companies go elsewhere.

Thats a big factor. But the EU just doesn't like American companies TBH. Look at what they have done in the past: MS and next up will be Google. Not because Google had the better and still best search engine, no but because they are the best and hold more of the market share. Just watch.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]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. The company maintains that its actions were within legal boundaries.[/citation]
Sure it's possible that they've made those deals, but imo they don't really matter. Most any reasonably big company will exclusively buy intel desktop and workstations by default. We all still remember how messed up a system could become when we started buying athlon 64's and all the professional software started working slower, or did unforseen things. I'd wager we haven't bought a single amd desktop since 2006 or so, perhaps even late 2005 when the amd problems related to autodesk (autodesk's fault, not amds) hit our company. Anyway, servers are a different story. But the majority of systems bought by companies will be intel.

 

[JPForums]

[citation][nom]Elsapo[/nom]So the prevailing opinion here is that, it is okay for a the bigger company to pay to have their competitions goods not reach market. Just clarifying because it seems that way to me.[/citation]

The prevailing opinion is that the EU has no business taking Intel's money. They are not the ones injured by said actions nor doing anything to benefit the ones injured.

Let me be very clear on this. Opposing the EU taking money from foreign companies (for which there exists no local competition) does not mean you absolve Intel of their crimes. If Intel is guilty (probable), then they should be fined even more heavily than what the EU will impose. However, the vast majority of the money should go to the ones they injured, and the rest to pay for investigation and prosecution expenses (a relatively small amount of the total if it isn't artificially bloated). Since the EU has no local competition to "protect" and no intention of helping the competition injured, then this is out of both their physical and ethical jurisdiction.

As it currently stands, their actions are simply reducing the total money available and slowing productivity in the industry at a time when the world leaders are meeting to figure out how to help productivity overall.

 

[13hawk]

[citation][nom]Elsapo[/nom].You lost me here... If I understand correctly Intel is trying to ensure that you get the best experience on your PC (Something for your good). therefore that makes it okay for them to make sure you can buy only their products..(they get rich) at increasingly higher prices (you get poor).... You've made your point. I don't know shit, but apparently you don't understand what you know.[/citation]

No. The "benevolent" EU powers that be are "fighting for the little man" and "trying to make the playing field fair". That = socialism. Like I said before - Life isn't fair. If "Fair" is what a government was aiming for then no law would ever be passed before every person had their say. If life was fair, everyone would have the exact same situation/circumstances. We would all drive the same car, live in the same house, make the same amount of money... but we don't. We are all born the same way - but from there everything changes. Life is a diversity - something most liberal minded people profess, yet strangely they seek to eliminate it by "leveling the playingfield"...

If you apply this to the business world you get my argument. Every business has the same opportunity at the very beginning. After that beginning everything changes. Is that "fair" (or should we try and make it fair?) No. Diversity IS a good thing when it isn't being used as a political means to an end. Another thing most liberal minded people believe in is Darwin or Darwinism... Life (business) IS a diversity because that is what is required in order to constantly refine the internal and external processes of both.

If you were to "level the playing field" (something that communists/socialists/Barack Obama LOVE to do) then you lose the sole function of darwinism. Now businesses and people become stagnant as far as evolution is concerned. Competition ceases to exists when the benefits of being competitive are eliminated/confiscated.

Some people feel it is wrong or shady for Intel to have sweetened the deal for some of these companies by offering rebates/incentives. What was to keep AMD from offering the same deal? That is part of the business world... and part of LIFE. Darwinism basically boils down to: life does what it has to to survive and advance or evolve. A business SHOULD fail or suffer negative effects when it does not have the wherewithal to make the correct decisions needed to survive and advance or evolve. This may not seem "fair" but it is a hell of a lot better than dragging everyone down to the same "level playingfield" and having EVERYONE suffer.

The people getting rich off this deal WILL be the EU. As stated before, AMD won't see a dime, nor will all the people (the little guys) that the government was "watching out for". Going back to "FAIR"... if what the government was doing was fair then everyone would see that money - but they won't. Only the people in the government will see that money. The people in government will then decide what to do with that money... but that isn't "fair" either. Why should just those few people get to decide what to do with the money? What about "the little guy"? Shouldn't he get a say in what happens to it? After all it was done in his name.

From there on out it depends on whether or not you think the government is capable of doing something honest and above the table with the money. Some people on here have mentioned Madoff and Enron... those people PALE in comparison to the people who can stand in front of a camera and profess to do something to "level the playing field" when they are doing everything in their power to enable their own "godmode"... (sorry, had to get back to a somewhat computer related tone for a second).

The largest problems the whole WORLD economy and government is facing today is the inability of government and company CEO's to choose to do what is right (for everyone) as opposed to what is beneficial for just themselves. This problem isn't going to get fixed until the people (the little guys) go after those who are truly responsible. THAT won't happen until people learn to see through all the finger pointing and banner waving and layer upon layer of lies told to weave a curtain around the truth. Most importantly - people have to decide to do this for themselves. We are all born with the ability to make our own choices. That ability is taken away when people try to "level the playing field".

Summary - Intel being competitive (and AMD not being competitive enough) isn't a bad thing... That's how the system should work. It FORCES AMD to either figure out a way to counteract Intel or fold. That is by definition "competitive", not anti-competitive. On the other hand - the government trying to take away competitiveness does nothing but take away freedom. (and gets the lying and conniving politicians rich off of money you SHOULD be spending on a Core i7...) ;-)

 

[Elsapo]

@JPForums: that is exactly what most people were doing "absolving intel". As for The EU handing out punishment. If you murdered someone in England.. You wold have to do the time in England. It's simple as that... and if the EU doesn't punish Intel, they get away because the US can't as the "crimes" (used loosely) were not committed in the US.

@13hawk Laws exists for a reason and that is order not fairness. I am not a socialist as I have said before. To put it simply... Intel was not competing. Having your opponents legs broken a day before the big race is not competing, and in essence that is what Intel was doing to AMD. Making sure that they never made it to the playing field...(if all of this is true mind you)

PS... Based on my limited knowledge of law I see nothing wrong with Intel's incentives. For me the problem lies in the fact(according to the EU) that these are in exchange for canceling AMD based products.