Wednesday, May 13th 2009

EU Fines Intel a Record €1.06 Billion in Antitrust Case

Following the news we covered the other day, the verdict is now in, and as expected Intel has been found guilty and fined €1.06 Billion ($1.45b/£948m) by the European Commission for anti-competitive practices. This fine smashes the €497 million fine issued to Microsoft by the EU in 2004 for abusing its dominant market position. Nine years on from when AMD first made a complaint that Intel had paid computer manufacturers not to use AMD chips in Europe the EU have ruled that Intel had given rebates to manufacturer's if they only used their chips, and had also found that a retailer had been paid to sell only Intel based systems.
"Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years," said Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, "Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated."Source: BBC
Add your own comment

77 Comments on EU Fines Intel a Record €1.06 Billion in Antitrust Case

#1
alexp999
Staff
Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it. :)

If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.

Are the EU going to fine car manufacturer's for you buying a car because they were offering you a discount making it cheaper than buying a similar car from another dealer? Wtf is the difference.

I'm getting bored of the EU fining everything that moves :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#2
e6600
down with the monopolies, we need more regulation like this in the world...

by: alexp999
Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it. :)

If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.

Are the EU going to fine car manufacturer's for you buying a car because they were offering you a discount making it cheaper than buying a similar car from another dealer? Wtf is the difference.

I'm getting bored of the EU fining everything that moves :ohwell:
smaller companies, and innovation cannot exist with intel as a solid monopoly over the x86 consumer industry

without amd, we would probably be paying $300 for P4's LOL

the biggest problem is countries like the US and UK where too much corporate tolerance holds down the attractiveness of new products from new companies, and well established (starbucks doesnt make the best coffee does it?) companies dominate the market with products that could be better (intel during the P4 days held off amd pretty well)
Posted on Reply
#3
WhiteLotus
Good news. I believe this is the right way to go, and i'm glad that it found the correct verdict (as if it ever wasn't). Although i am surprised that it took NINE years and we have only just heard about it.
Posted on Reply
#4
tigger
I'm the only one
The eu are greedy barstewards.Were does the money go? into some fat greedy cun*s back pocket.

And i totally agree alex.
Posted on Reply
#5
derFeef
@ tigger
So its okay for you if a company plays unfair? If it would be microsoft you would jump of joy, amiright?
Posted on Reply
#6
vanyots
by: alexp999
Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it. :)

If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.

Are the EU going to fine car manufacturer's for you buying a car because they were offering you a discount making it cheaper than buying a similar car from another dealer? Wtf is the difference.

I'm getting bored of the EU fining everything that moves :ohwell:
But... like you said it in the news:
Intel had given rebates to manufacturer's if they only used their chips, and had also found that a retailer had been paid to sell only Intel based systems
The keyword here is ONLY, and that's BAD, and very UNcompetitive!
Posted on Reply
#7
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Serves them right.
Posted on Reply
#8
alexp999
Staff
Just to make myself clear, I agree it was wrong to pay off retailers to only use their stuff, but offering rebates to make manufacturer's "intel" only or whatever doesnt seem bad to me.

EVGA are NVIDIA only (other than X58, but even that has an NF200 on it), and up until very recently XFX was NVIDIA only.

If you ask me (other than paying off retailers), Intel are being very competitive, its not like they have people backed up against a wall and are forcing them to pay more.

They are undercutting the competition, if AMD came up with a better deal, then the manufacturers and retailers could have said no.
Posted on Reply
#9
derFeef
by: alexp999
If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.
They gave rebate under the condidtion not to build/sell AMD powered PC´s. Now if that is fair competition, there must be something wrong with your mind :eek:
Posted on Reply
#10
alexp999
Staff
by: derFeef
They gave rebate under the condidtion not to build/sell AMD powered PC´s. Now if that is fair competition, there must be something wrong with your mind :eek:
Sounds fair to me, manufacturer's could have said no. AMD could have come up with a counter offer. Business is business IMO.
Posted on Reply
#11
derFeef
by: alexp999
They are undercutting the competition, if AMD came up with a better deal, then the manufacturers and retailers could have said no.
AMD never had the chance come up with a better deal. But well, they play fair. Cheers AMD! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#12
alexp999
Staff
Business isnt fair. If it was we wouldnt have price wars between retailers and manufacturer's.

Then it would suck to be a consumer. Often like you get big companies (e.g supermarkets) collaborating to rise prices together. THATS anti-competitive.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mussels
Moderprator
by: alexp999
Sounds fair to me, manufacturer's could have said no. AMD could have come up with a counter offer. Business is business IMO.
if they said no... good bye business.
Posted on Reply
#14
alexp999
Staff
They were offering rebates, its not like Intel said, you cant have our products if you buy from AMD too.
Posted on Reply
#15
derFeef
by: alexp999
Business isnt fair. If it was we wouldnt have price wars between retailers and manufacturer's.

Then it would suck to be a consumer. Often like you get big companies (e.g supermarkets) collaborating to rise prices together. THATS anti-competitive.
Uhm, but the retailers sold the systems for the normal price, not the rabate price they got from intel.
Posted on Reply
#16
alexp999
Staff
by: derFeef
Uhm, but the retailers sold the systems for the normal price, not the rabate price they got from intel.
Thats their problem, not Intels
Posted on Reply
#17
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: alexp999
They were offering rebates, its not like Intel said, you cant have our products if you buy from AMD too.
You need some research on what are the actual charges leveled against Intel. Previous news. Intel bribed manufacturers to cancel/delay their products based on AMD CPUs, and dictating manufacturers on what share of their products should use Intel processors. It's illegal, and not just in my opinion, but that of not only EU, but also the governments of Japan, and Korea, with investigations backed by US Federal Trade Commission.
Posted on Reply
#18
derFeef
by: alexp999
They were offering rebates, its not like Intel said, you cant have our products if you buy from AMD too.
Well, thay actually did. "Dont sell AMD products and get our stuff with 30% off"
Posted on Reply
#19
alexp999
Staff
by: btarunr
You need some research on what are the actual charges leveled against Intel. Previous news. Intel bribed manufacturers to cancel/delay their products based on AMD CPUs.
I'm just going by what my source says they were actually fined for. Not everything they could have been fined for.

I agree they have done some anti-competitive/anti-trust practices, but IMO, rebates to manufacturer's shouldnt have been one of them.
Posted on Reply
#20
derFeef
by: alexp999
Thats their problem, not Intels
Problem? They got a huge GAIN with this. Please, research a bit :)

edit - from the source:
In addition to providing rebates to manufacturers that bought almost entirely Intel products, the Commission found that the chipmaker had paid them to postpone or cancel the launch of specific products based on AMD chips.
Posted on Reply
#21
Mussels
Moderprator
by: derFeef
Well, thay actually did. "Dont sell AMD products and get our stuff with 30% off"
"dont sell AMD and get 30% off"
"sell less than 10% AMD and get 20% off"

etc.


Basically in the competitive PC world, it meant if you went with AMD... you lost out. you would never be able to price match your competitors. The general public knew "pentium" they dont know "athlon" - intel had made it so that if you sold AMD, your intel systems would cost too much and never sell, so it was intel or AMD - no middle ground.

And if you gotta pick one or the other, you go the one the public will buy... and that was intel.
Posted on Reply
#22
alexp999
Staff
Oh I'm not getting anywhere with this, its my opinion that one of the things they got fined for isnt anti-competitive.

Some of it is the EU as a whole, I'm getting sick of them fining big corps massive amounts, for stupid things.

Take this as my final post here, I'm going round in circles now :)
Posted on Reply
#23
scud
Quite sick of reading posts when people clearly don't have a full understanding of the seriousness of competition offenses!

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/745&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Have a look here; the EU don't just give out Billion Dollar fines for nothing! Theres a reason why it took 9 years!

Plus, about rebates, this is a practice long been known ILLEGAL in EU rulings. Intel should have been aware of this. This was established years ago when Tyre manufacturers got fined for issuing rebates!

Also, about the fines; this is the main reason why running the competition commission is so cost effective. It means that it can cover it's own costs, at the same time protecting consumers from abuse by dominant firms, these investigations are expensive (not helped by un-cooperative companies), and this means that EU taxpayers don't get burdened with the huge cost!
Posted on Reply
#24
derFeef
by: alexp999
Oh I'm not getting anywhere with this, its my opinion that one of the things they got fined for isnt anti-competitive.

Some of it is the EU as a whole, I'm getting sick of them fining big corps massive amounts, for stupid things.

Take this as my final post here, I'm going round in circles now :)
You seem to be a smart person, but you are maybe just a fanboy :p
Posted on Reply
#25
Mussels
Moderprator
by: derFeef
You seem to be a smart person, but you are maybe just a fanboy :p
now now, please dont go calling him a fanboy.

He's stated clearly, that while he doesnt think intel was correct its just ONE of the things, he sees nothing wrong with.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment