Intel Hit With $1.45 Billion Fine From EU

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be intresting if intel doesn't pay does that make the ceo's not welcomed in europoe anymore. And then intel stop doing business in europe then make amd a monopoly aganist wut via lol then they can use amd too! more bang for their buck.
 
If Intel doesn't pay the first move from the EU would be to give them an ever increasing fine for not paying. In the extreme case the EU could ban the import and sales of Intel chips until the case has been resolved leaving AMD and VIA with a free market.

About AMD not getting anything, that's simply not true. AMD gets the word of the EU courts, as it already has from the South Korean and Japanese courts, that Intel has been engaged in unethical business practices. This could be the basis for a very rewarding AMD versus Intel case in the US.
 
Unfortuantely, this verdict comes about 5 years too late. It's unfortunate. I think this could have done a lot for AMD during its time when it was on top.
 
The thing is if AMD tries to say something, Intel might be a total B**ch and pull the plug on them. Intel has the x86 Instruction Set license, which AMD uses to produce their CPUs and AMD has the x86-64 license. So if one company pulls the plug, its like taking out the other company, and taking yourself out.
 
Wonder where this money will go, eh?

100% not to the competitors, VIA and AMD.

Sometimes I wonder if these commission douches care about public opinion. I'm sure millions of Europeans don't give a rat's ass, and this hasn't harmed anyone in any way except AMD.
 
The real harm to consumers was lack of competition. Sure Intel heavily discounted their chips to OEM's but you've gotta wonder what prices would be like if they had to compete with AMD. Also given that AMD had a surperior product at the time I'd be wagering Intel did that to stay in the game. AMD was making massive OEM headway and thats where the real money is for CPUs and Intel couldn't afford to sacrifice that market share. So they made dodgey deals to shut AMD out and preserve their share till core2 hit shelves. I'd wager competition would be red hot by now if AMD had been on level ground. Because even with the flop of the phenom they'd have gotten a lot more exposure to the average consumer. Because they were all but shut out of OEM this relegates them to the niche enthusiast market.
 
[citation][nom]bill gates is your daddy[/nom]Are you retarded or do you take night classes on how to become a world-class douche?"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."This case has nothing to do with Intel marketing their latest chip or if you believe that AMD cannot keep up with Intel (imo they do). This case is about Intel essentially PAYING retailers to not carry AMD or delay release of AMD products. That's F'ed up right there.AMD produces a great product. They make processors that do everything that Intel can do and AMD makes it more cost effective. Buy AMD and take that $100+ you just saved and put it toward a better GPU. Buy ATI and save some more. AMD is playing the game and playing it very well but you can’t ever get an Intel fanboi to admit that.I like Intel products and have always supported them but this time I am building all AMD because I have enough intelligence to recognize a price bargin without taking a performance loss.On that note. Tom, there is a review you can do. $1500 cap but underspending is encouraged and will count toward the final score - AMD/ATI vs Intel/Nvidia and see which produces a more cost effective setup.[/citation]

Problem is that you cannot prove it based off of this. This is just a EU fine. There has been no final ruling from the judges on it. Its just the EUs way of getting a slice of the pie first before AMD will.

During the time period that AMD claims this all there are a few other factors that a lot of people leave out. One is that AMD only had about 3 FABs at the time. That limited their production of chips to provide to OEMs and as well the prefered to put chips in the channel instead of to the OEMs. Second is the fact that instead of building up their FABs they bought ATI which put them in the hole for about $4.8Billion.

Value wise is very dependant. If you don't go crazy and buy the highest end everything then a Intel build is not as pricey for the same performance as people say it is. If you think it takes a Core i7 945EE to compete with a Phenom X4 955 then you are sorely mistaken. A Core i7 920 or even a C2Q Q9550 will do the job just as well.

And as for your suggestion, why would you only use nVidia for a Intel setup? If a ATI card is the best deal why not use it? I prefer ATI since the bang for your buck has always been there even before AMD bought them.

Either way this is just a fine for the EU. It has very little to do with AMD itself. Hell its just like what they did to MS. Now there is a Windows OS with nothing but the OS. No browser or media player. You now have to buy or find one to use before you can, well in the EU that is.
 
It's my opinion that AMD was very much hurt by this practice. I've read up on this and my understanding is Intel locked out AMD from many OEM's. This was a time when AMD was making better CPU's than Intel and because Intel couldn't compete they used their surplus cash to make sure that AMD wouldn't be able to sell their CPU's except to Individuals. Every CPU they sold to the OEM's was at a loss but if they could just do it for a couple of years they might be able to drive out AMD and then they could control the market as they pleased. They could charge as much as they want, do small incremental performance increases as they wanted, and make a ton while they did it. At the very worse they could slow down AMD's Research and Development to a crawl and this would give Intel the time it needed to regain the crown. At the very best... There would be no competition.
This is where the consumer got hurt. Intel's plan worked. They drove AMD to the fringes and even though AMD was making a much superior CPU they couldn't sell them. Without being able to sell CPU's AMD's Capital dropped as did their funding for Research and Development.
With AMD on the rocks Intel could sit back and control the market as they saw fit. They just needed to make a better CPU than AMD and everything would be just fine. Who cares if the P4 was crap... That was all in the Past. Now with a two to three year lead Intel could release CPU's with no real challenge. If AMD started to gain well there was always a CPU they could release that would knock them back down.
AMD knew that going down just the CPU path they would never catch up. They had to look really far ahead and see where the path was leading. So, AMD bought ATI and was nearly destroyed by doing so but by AMD's point of view they were already dead. The question was would they die a slow death or take a gamble and risk it all for a chance to get back the crown not a year or two years but ten years down the road. It would be a slow crawl back to where they were once before but they would at least have a chance.
So how was the consumer hurt?
AMD wasn't just making a better CPU they were making a Superior one and who knows where we would be with CPU's if Intel hadn't controlled the market the way they had. The way the market was going at the time before Intel threw the brake switch, who knows? It definatly wouldn't be where it is now. Everyone was hurt by this and then again some of us wasn't.
Back then you had to get a new CPU every couple of years to three years. When you bought a CPU it was already old. Things were going at Speeds that were simply amazing. Software was so far behind the Hardware that it was a common belief that it would never catch up. The current CPU I have in my computer was made about three years ago and I don't see me having to change it out for another couple of years. All I have to do is keep upgrading to the latest Graphics Card every couple of years and I'm good as far as games are concerned. You couldn't do that back then.
So the Market has been hurt by Intel's actions. Intel made a bundel but everyone else suffered. After the Appeal is done AMD will be able to take Intel to court to sue for damages. Then maybe in another five years or so we can have a new round of competition where everything is going at the speed of light and we just don't know what the next month will bring. But honestly... I doubt it.
 
For Intel this was amazingly cheap. Even if the fine were $4B how much has Intel made by strong arming AMD from the market i.e. to the vendors if you don't use just our stuff you'll have a supply problem and fall behind your competitors.

Intel took AMD out of competition for less than they have spent in recent product development. If AMD survives it'll take 5-10 years to catch up.
 
"Perfectmanship"? Unh "make mess a lot"? Okay... if you say so. The next commentor is correct, when this suit was filed in 2001, AMD had a superior product for a superior pice BUT couldn't get in the door with most major OEMs because of Intel's black-ops division.. There was corruption, anti-competitive practices and old fashioned strong-armed tatics on Intel's part back then that kept AMD from gaining even more market share.

AMD then fell victims to bad timing and worse management.

One Intel got it's chit together and started producing better chips. Not as elegant or well designed as AMD's but that didn't matter, brute force uber alles.

Two, AMD management suddenly became brain dead. Mistake after mistake in product release in over-zealous promotion of inferior product you name it. This was a double hit because everytime they failed to measure up the Intel spook boys flooded forums and offices to poor even more dirt on.

Three AMD forgot that its easier to get on top than to stay on top. They had a great 3 year run where their Athlon chips waxed Intel butt like lunch but they failed to work on their second act and hence had no answer for the Core 2 Processor.

Four, AMD bought ATI, the right move and the wrong time. Making themselves cash strapped for development after having woken the sleeping giant.

These things have more to do with AMD's current state of affairs than Intel dirty tricks, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Da Worfster
 
I wonder when the EU will start investigating OPEC? They are a cartel, and regularly engage in price fixing and supply coordination that certainly harms the EU consumer much more than anything Intel may have done. Since the EU commissioners are gutless, I won't be holding my breath.
 
[citation][nom]justjc[/nom]If Intel doesn't pay the first move from the EU would be to give them an ever increasing fine for not paying. In the extreme case the EU could ban the import and sales of Intel chips until the case has been resolved leaving AMD and VIA with a free market.About AMD not getting anything, that's simply not true. AMD gets the word of the EU courts, as it already has from the South Korean and Japanese courts, that Intel has been engaged in unethical business practices. This could be the basis for a very rewarding AMD versus Intel case in the US.[/citation]
If the EU were to ban the import and sale of Intel CPUs, that would be cause for Intel to completely and totally pull support for every single Intel CPU already in the EU. Im sure none of the companies doing busines sin the EU would have any problem with that..
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]They had plenty of cash coming in in the Athlon 64 early days when Pentium 4's and Pentium D's were cheap, hot and slow and the A64's and X2's allowed for a premium price for the better more efficent option etc - all they gave us is the Phenom - wouldnt say your statement is entirely true[/citation]


Yes they had plenty of cash comming in, but their growth was halted due to what intel was doing. AMD tried very hard to increase market share, but it wasn't pushing past the 20% no matter how hard they tried.
 
[citation][nom]bill gates is your daddy[/nom]"Once final judgment has been delivered in any appeals before the Court of First Instance (CFI) and the Court of Justice, the money goes into the EU’s central budget, thus reducing the contributions that Member States pay to the EU."AMD is wronged by Intel monopoly + EU fines Intel $1.45 bil = AMD gets $0.00What is the reason behind this again?[/citation]
EU is just greedy....

What can I say? When low on cash they always chase after Microsoft for a few bucks.


Too bad the EU doesn't impost some incentive to help AMD out, like limiting or imposing duty on Intel CPUs, or tax breaks for using AMD cpus etc to make up for the fact they are keeping the cash.
 
How is the EU greedy? 1 bil € is a drop in the ocean for the EU. You seem to be forgetting that the EU GDP is 18.3 tril $ and even 4 tril larger than the US GDP.

Also this case was about the violation against the Antitrust laws. That is unrelated to the damages done to AMD. This is about the damage done to the marketplace and the populace of the EU. AMD can still go for a civil case and demand damages for Intel's behaviour.

I don't get why people are opposed to Antitrust regulation. Any sensible economist knows that they are necessary. Otherwise the big fish would first push competition out of the market by abusing their power and then demand whatever fee they deemed fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom