Intel Sued by FTC Over Monopoly Issues

Page 2 - 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.
A crime is a crime, and it is the FTC's job to deal with this type of crime something they wouldn't do under the megacorp loving Bush admin.

Now if only congress would repeal the anti-trust exemption on insurance companies, we could see the FTC go after some real bad people.

-G, Local tech poly sci guy
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]that 1.25 bill has NOTHING to do witrh intel's US activites , that was a EU issue , the FTC is bringing the mattter of intels illegal US activites to light, that is what this is about . it's like a international murder , if they kill folks in two differnt countries , and say he get's arrested in ioen countrya nd tried and convicted it doesn't change the fact that he HASn't been punished for his murder in the opther country and he STILL CAN BE. same case here , teh 1.25 billion was the EU's punishment .. but intel hasn't even gone to court in US yet much less been punished for thier activites here[/citation]
+1

I think a lot of people (those confused about why this is raised again) didn't realize that its a different jurisdiction (FTC for USA, EU Trade Commission for EU countries)
 
I'm going to guess people are voting you down for calling them socialists. Double plus ungood for not know what particular political philosophy espouses. Nice try though... Now could you go back to Limbaugh and leave the rest of us in peace?
 
[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]Why does it seem like everything "consumer advocacy" groups do has less to do with helping the consumer and more to do with milking money out of companies?[/citation]

What penalty would you suggest, writing "I will compete" on the blackboard 100 times?
 
The AMD vs Intel case is what awarded AMD the money and has nothing to do with EU, FTC, or any other case. Looking at how they settled, it was in Intel's best interest to not allow AMD to volunteer the information to harm Intel's cases now and in the future (regarding this antitrust delima).

What the 1.25B to AMD did in cases like this, AMD is not allowed to "volunteer" evidence to the FTC. But this does not stop the FTC from forcing AMD to bring evidence they need to proceed.
 
Intel has responded to the FTC lawsuit by issuing the following statement, “Intel has competed fairly and lawfully. Its actions have benefitted consumers. The highly competitive microprocessor industry, of which Intel is a key part, has kept innovation robust and prices declining at a faster rate than any other industry. The FTC’s case is misguided. It is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated. In addition, it is explicitly not based on existing law but is instead intended to make new rules for regulating business conduct. These new rules would harm consumers by reducing innovation and raising prices.”
Click to expand...

I LOL at this responce, keeping innovation robust by cutting AMD's R&D budget and setting Bulldozer back by 2 years (originally scheduled for 2009 before AMD hit rock bottom and had to cut jobs). Ya, thats helping innovation.
 
[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]Who are the socialist idiots who are neg-voting all of these very valid comments?!The fact of the matter is that the FTC does very little to actually help or safe-guard consumers anymore. Between this, and their recent warnings about adult content in online social environments (thank you, Captain Obvious), and their recent chastizing of the movie and game industry for supposedly targeting kids with too much violence and sex, what we are seeing is, yet another, bloated government agency who thinks they have a mandate from on high to dictate to us what is and is not socially acceptable. I think the FTC, as well as numerous other federal agencies, should be defunded and their bureaucrats made to find real jobs (if that is even possible given their lack of real-world experience).[/citation]

Anytime anti-trust is mentioned in an article, you free market morons are there to shill for the corporation, no matter their offense. Anti-competitive practices are devastating in the long run to capitalism. The FTC is here to remind Intel of this concept. Mind you, this concept is not new, and predates America by about 2000 years.
 
[citation][nom]Porksmuggler[/nom]Anytime anti-trust is mentioned in an article, you free market morons are there to shill for the corporation, no matter their offense. Anti-competitive practices are devastating in the long run to capitalism. The FTC is here to remind Intel of this concept. Mind you, this concept is not new, and predates America by about 2000 years.[/citation]
Free-market morons eh? You mean because we're opposed to organizations like the FTC who over-step their mandate and start passing judgment over the creative content of movies and games, and even Internet websites? Or did you even get that far in my post?

And the fact that you use a phrase like, "free market morons" suggests that you think free markets are a bad thing. Yet, like all hypocrits, you are emjoying the use of a computer and many other innovations which would not have happened were it not for unfettered capitalism. When examining countries with imposed "fairness" (i.e. socialism), I'm hard pressed to find any innovation, or even anything of note coming out of them.

Now, I agree that anti-competitive practices need to be discouraged, as that too can stiffle innovation. But a lot of what I'm seeing from the FTC and from the EU is nothing more than extortion by fiat. They see corporations like Microsoft as nothing more than a cash register filled with money that they (FTC and EU) feel entitled to.
 
Jellico, I'm willing to be that Porksmuggler (like me and many others) think you are a moron for saying that you support "discouraging" anti-competitive practices (what the hell does that mean anyways? Are you going to write them a strongly worded letter or something?) and then champion the cause of the two MOST anti-competitive companies in the world. To top it off, you claim that he isn't giving your argument it's merits after clearly ignoring 30+ years of recent history. Kudos to you sir!
 
[citation][nom]shadowkazama[/nom]How much would they be able to jack up the price, and no one could say/do anything about it?[/citation]
As much as the market will bear. No more, no less. Raise proces they would, but no so much as to have their revenue stream fall to unacceptable levels. Even a monopoly still needs to sell something.
 
[citation][nom]siuol11[/nom]Jellico, I'm willing to be that Porksmuggler (like me and many others) think you are a moron for saying that you support "discouraging" anti-competitive practices (what the hell does that mean anyways? Are you going to write them a strongly worded letter or something?) and then champion the cause of the two MOST anti-competitive companies in the world. To top it off, you claim that he isn't giving your argument it's merits after clearly ignoring 30+ years of recent history. Kudos to you sir![/citation]
And I'd be willing to bet that, if it were your company, you'd be whistling a different tune.

With regard to my use of the word, "discourage"... I see nothing in the definition which implies writing a strongly worded letter or any other such nonsense. If I caught you trespassing on my property and pointed my 9mm at your head, I could say that I discouraged you from any further criminal activity.

Intel got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Their actions harmed AMD and they settled that grievence to the tune of $1.25 BILLION. So NOW the FTC wants to step in. They already failed to do their job, but they want to find a way to ring a large fine out of Intel. Hence, my comment about extortion by fiat.

 
If demand and supply works, then Intel is just puttin $$ ontop the heads of it's consumers, and they do not really care about us. Prices are just prices nothing special. The laws are there for a purpose. FTC does a good job at inforcing them.
 
[citation][nom]logitic[/nom]To be only fair the FTC worked better before Obama appointed a former lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), by the name of Jon Leibowitz. Since then it has dropped the ball on a lot on principal arguments.[/citation]

How did it work better, especially since then have been after Intel since the 1990's.

Logic Fail there my friend....
 
They need to be sued to pay for free laptops for poor kids... and free internet too!
 
[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]And I'd be willing to bet that, if it were your company, you'd be whistling a different tune.With regard to my use of the word, "discourage"... I see nothing in the definition which implies writing a strongly worded letter or any other such nonsense. If I caught you trespassing on my property and pointed my 9mm at your head, I could say that I discouraged you from any further criminal activity.Intel got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Their actions harmed AMD and they settled that grievence to the tune of $1.25 BILLION. So NOW the FTC wants to step in. They already failed to do their job, but they want to find a way to ring a large fine out of Intel. Hence, my comment about extortion by fiat.[/citation]

Not to jump up jellico, because his points are valid, but I do want to point out that Intel's settlement with AMD was to kept AMD from taking them to court. Never do they admit anty wrong doing. It was hush money my friend.

The FTC is going after their business practices, a seperate issue because Intel never admitted any wrong doing.

One has to wonder if this case would have happened if Intel say "hey we screwed you over" instead of giving them hush money.

Again I say INTEL never admit any wrongdoing, so nothing has been settled...
 
This is more about nvidia than AMD.
Intel sells Atom+Chipset for less than they sell just Atom in order to keep ION out.
I kid you not. Its disgusting.
 
Just because Intel settled with AMD doesn't mean the FTC can't cast its weight on the matter. It's similar to judges rejecting a plea bargain if they feel that justice isn't being properly served by it.

It is even better comparable with the co-existence of criminal suits and civil suits. In this case, the settlement with AMD would be on the civil side, but the criminal aspect may have not been (properly) dealt with, and that's where the FTC comes in.

Those responsible need to be accountable. It is quite too often when companies break the law, and eventually, nobody suffers any personal consequence on the offending side. Those companies pay a (usually small) manageable fine and go about their unfair business practices yet again. Many times they will roll this expense over, either to consumers by raising prices, or to lower level employees by cutting their pay or by layoffs, or all of the above.

Whether or not the FTC has been consistent with regards of protecting consumers' rights and fair business conduct in the past, is a different matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom