Intel to be Slapped with Greatest Fine in EU History

[WhiteLotus]

I'm sorry but what? If it was failing so much why does the EU not just conjure up some money from nowhere and put a "Bail-out" label on it and just give it to them. Which the USA did when the "big three" all claimed to be failing. Hmm i wonder...

[lemonadesoda]

Once again, there is the EU trying to "tax" a company to help cover up the huge financial mess they have got themselves into. How politically convenient. And what a nice way to "cover the hole" of the whopping salaries and expense accounts at the EU parliament.

[TreadR]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

If you read the article[...] Dell did it.

Shows how less you know about commerce.

If 9 out of 10 companies buy a product at price and get a discount of 20% for not acquiring the competitor's product as well, and that remaining company gets 0% discount, just the batch price because it wants to serve its clients every option that there is... how do you think it would be able survive? The other 9 co. can just add a 19% profit and that would mean a clear loss for that single one company.

In this situation, and in my view... that's far from fair business!

Originally Posted by newtekie1

The Nehalem chipset licensing issue was that nVidia didn't want to pay Intel to license the QPI tech, they want Intel to give it to them and let them use it for free.

No, you're misinformed! AFAIK it was QPI for NF200less-SLI-enabled Intel boards! This way, the mobo manufacturers could choose if they want SLI for 5$ through a soft mod, no SLI at all or the alternative, a 50$ to 100$ NF200 version (price depending on manufacturer) that would enable SLI. That was the deal... but once Intel got their 5$ mod, NV got nothing!

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

AMD dies, which most speculators believe will happen in some way by 2011

Don't be one of those sorry kids that eats this kind of BS... it's really sad when people do that!
I've heard a enough that AMD dies, goes bankrupt, gets bought, goes tits-up or gets blown up because of financial problems in the last 8 or so years... so far, they are pushing products that a lot of us can afford and are glad it's still here to make a difference.

What happens with the money remains to be seen... so far people can speculate all they want about EU... the show's not over!

[ghost101]

Originally Posted by alexp999

So thats how the EU is bailing the banks out.

If only 1bn EUR was anywhere near enough the the world would be so much better. When we live in an environment where the word trillion is used often, you have to appreciate how 1bn is no where near enough to bail out banks.

Really does the EU have nothing better to do than fine everybody

The European Competition Commission has nothing other than to investigate companies and anticompetitive behaviour. Its why it was created.

[ghost101]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

intel dont pay to eu!

And both the japanese and korean regulators? What about the FTC? Intel still need to sell their products. Without europe, the US and Japan they pretty much alienate most of the world's wealth.

[Morgoth]

Originally Posted by ghost101

And both the japanese and korean regulators? What about the FTC? Intel still need to sell their products. Without europe, the US and Japan they pretty much alienate most of the world's wealth.

use multi quote idiot, actealy i dont care
i can still order from us stores

[e6600]

Originally Posted by ghost101

If only 1bn EUR was anywhere near enough the the world would be so much better. When we live in an environment where the word trillion is used often, you have to appreciate how 1bn is no where near enough to bail out banks.



The European Competition Commission has nothing other than to investigate companies and anticompetitive behaviour. Its why it was created.

anti competitive?
if anything the EU promotes competition... why do you think they are trying to stop an intel monopoly?

without amd, intel would be sitting on $500 multi core P4's at 6ghz LOL

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by TreadR

Shows how less you know about commerce.

If 9 out of 10 companies buy a product at price and get a discount of 20% for not acquiring the competitor's product as well, and that remaining company gets 0% discount, just the batch price because it wants to serve its clients every option that there is... how do you think it would be able survive? The other 9 co. can just add a 19% profit and that would mean a clear loss for that single one company.

In this situation, and in my view... that's far from fair business!

It is perfectly fair because if Company A is offering a discount, then there is nothing stopping Company B from offering a discount either. Again, I see this in my families business all the time, our suppliers constnatly offer us discounts as long as we buy from them only, we don't so we don't get the discounts, but that doesn't mean the offers disappear.

Your ideas are flawed in that you don't take into account the fact that Intel had competition. It isn't an issue of if they didn't take the discount, then they would have to sell Intel products with lower profits. They just better be buying AMD products at competitive prices to what Intel's products with the discount. It is competition, if AMD wants to compete, they need to offer their products to the companies at competitive prices.

Originally Posted by TreadR

No, you're misinformed! AFAIK it was QPI for NF200less-SLI-enabled Intel boards! This way, the mobo manufacturers could choose if they want SLI for 5$ through a soft mod, no SLI at all or the alternative, a 50$ to 100$ NF200 version (price depending on manufacturer) that would enable SLI. That was the deal... but once Intel got their 5$ mod, NV got nothing!

Actually, you are misinformed. The NF200 thing didn't come up till about half way through the ordeal.

At first, nVidia wanted to make true chipsets for the i7. However, to do that they need to use QPI, which they need to license from Intel. NVidia wanted Intel to allow them to use QPI for free, Intel would have no part of that. And Intel is in the right here, they spent a huge amount to develope it, they aren't going to give it away for use for free, especially not to a company just so they can develope a competing product. By the time nVidia finally caved and agreed to pay licensing fees for QPI it was too late for them to get a chipset out before launch, in fact we still haven't seen a chipset from them.

Of course this would have screwed nVidia, because it would mean that they would not have an SLi solution out for the i7 for a large amount of time, and poeple would be using Crossfire exclusively. So nVidia's next big idea was to simply have motherboard manufacturers put NF200 chips on any i7 motherboard that they wanted to support SLi. The backfired because the manufacturers told nVidia they wouldn't have enough time to develope boards like this in time for the i7 launch, and they also told nVidia they would likely not produce many boards with the NF200 chip due to the extra cost.

This is finally when nVidia gave up on having one of their chips on every SLi board, and finally just allowed manufacturers to qualify the board for SLi by simply paying a small licensing fee and sending nVidia samples for SLi qualification.

Here is the best explanation I could find of when exclusive dealing agreements are illegal.

Exclusive Dealing Agreements

Exclusive dealing agreements are a form of second-degree price discrimination, similar to requirements tie-in sales. In exclusive dealing agreements, a buyer agrees to purchase all of its requirements for some product or service from one suppliers. For instance, restaurant and
fast food franchises often agree to purchase all of their supplies (cups, plates, food ingredients, etc.) from the parent company.

Courts currently apply the rule of reason to exclusive dealing agreements, which are often recognized to provide economic benefits to both buyers and sellers. Via exclusive dealing agreements, small retailers and businesses can be assured of having a steady supply of products and inputs, while suppliers can be assured of having buyers. Courts have looked at the market power of firms engaged in exclusive dealing agreements in order to judge such agreements' legitimacy; firms without substantial market power have tended to be allowed to engage in exclusive dealing agreements, whereas exclusive dealing agreements on the part of "dominant" firms have tended to be curtailed.

However, the criteria for market power and market dominance are vague. Any particular firm cannot at any time be sure if its exclusive dealing agreements are legal or not until the matter is taken to the courts.

[mechtech]

even if it is over 1 Billion Euros, Intel could probly cut a cheque for that lol, more important than the fine will be the verdict, GUILTY or innocent.

[newtekie1]

Thank you twilyth, the bold statement is exactly the reason I have issue with this ruling against Intel(and the rulings against Microsoft).

You should not be punished, and not have to follow special rules, simply because you are a bigger company. The same rules should apply to all companies, large or small. Otherwise, who is to decided what company is big enough to be considered big? The governing bodies are purposely not establishing guidelines on what companies are big, and which aren't. So they can extract as much free money out of as many companies as possible.

Laws and rules like this need to be an all or none issue. Either enforce the rules for all companies, or none. You don't get to selectively choose which companies you will suddenly start enforcing the rules for. You can suddenly decide you will enforce the rule for a single company just so you can get some money out of them.

[tkpenalty]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Thank you twilyth, the bold statement is exactly the reason I have issue with this ruling against Intel(and the rulings against Microsoft).

You should not be punished, and not have to follow special rules, simply because you are a bigger company. The same rules should apply to all companies, large or small. Otherwise, who is to decided what company is big enough to be considered big? The governing bodies are purposely not establishing guidelines on what companies are big, and which aren't. So they can extract as much free money out of as many companies as possible.

Laws and rules like this need to be an all or none issue. Either enforce the rules for all companies, or none. You don't get to selectively choose which companies you will suddenly start enforcing the rules for. You can suddenly decide you will enforce the rule for a single company just so you can get some money out of them.

A company is deemed big when they dominate the market that they're in. In this case these business deals only lose their legality when they become anti-competetive, making it impossible for the competitor in the same sector to sell their goods. Remember, economies these days are mostly mixed markets, and all or none solutions never work (True Capitalism/True Socailism), and same goes for this law.

Is it fair that, none of the OEMs will use Company A's products, because the dominating Company X decided to pay these OEMs not to use them? Thats whats going on. Thats just abusing your market position, its like a person paying people to take up places in a competition with limited places so that you cant participate, because you'd be a threat to their victory.

[buggalugs]

I dont doubt intel have done this because it seems like everyone in the IT industry is doing it. Its not just the EU prosecuting either, there have been many cases in the US, Korea, Taiwan ,Japan and various countries, but mainly countries that produce technology.

AMD and Nvidia were busted for price fixing, The memory makers in Korea were busted , the LCD makers in Taiwan. They all seem to be sheisters and they are all involved to some degree.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by tkpenalty

Is it fair that, none of the OEMs will use Company A's products, because the dominating Company X decided to pay these OEMs not to use them? Thats whats going on. Thats just abusing your market position, its like a person paying people to take up places in a competition with limited places so that you cant participate, because you'd be a threat to their victory.

Yes, it is fair, because there is nothing stopping Company A from offering the same deals as Company X. It isn't Company X's fault that Company A can't/won't be competitive.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Yes, it is fair, because there is nothing stopping Company A from offering the same deals as Company X. It isn't Company X's fault that Company A can't/won't be competitive.

theres a difference between offering a lower/more competetive price, and only offering that lower price to people who dont sell any competing products.

[Haytch]

I wish i could be in that hearing.

I really dont think any of us know exactly what went on. Surely the evidence we have gathered helps sway our opinions but we should never forget that the masses are indeed sheep.

I have seen too many times, a poor quality, stupid product mass produced and sold, and dominate market share. Probably as many times as i have seen shady business actions.

I think i have heard too many Binderberg conspiracy theories and just felt like adding that the money ending up in the banks hands is what the final outcome will be. U.S is a dry-well, lets drain everything via E.U. That being said, it wont matter if Intel did or didnt when 3/4 of the worlds population is DEAD. . . ( Dont mind me, i just thought i'll spin this off until we get an outcome. )

. . . If i was Intel, i would have made sure AMD was dead by now and have total Monopoly in the industry, killing any uprising competition YEARS ago. This would lead to hostile takeovers of everything remotely related. Anyone that opposes, will have no technology. - - Lucky hey!

[tkpenalty]

Originally Posted by Haytch

I have seen too many times, a poor quality, stupid product mass produced and sold, and dominate market share. Probably as many times as i have seen shady business actions

mmm Gibson guitars? I hope you mean that.

[Hayder_Master]

smack that intel , every one notice this , no fair challenge , now time kick ass

[kaneda]

Originally Posted by btarunr

EU isn't the only one with the contention that Intel is into market malpractices. Korea and Japan back EU's contention with their own trials. Besides EU is also using USFTC for the investigation. If proven guilty, a US federal agency will have backed EU. One can't corner and bitch at EU.

People like to blame europe for everything. Honestly we dont take offense at it anymore.

[WhiteLotus]

Originally Posted by kaneda

People like to blame europe for everything. Honestly we dont take offense at it anymore.

they sure do kinda like water off a ducks back now

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by kaneda

People like to blame europe for everything. Honestly we dont take offense at it anymore.

canada, new zealand and scotland are previous countries who have taken the position of "blame them for everything"

I suggest we use the french next.

[kaneda]

Originally Posted by Mussels

canada, new zealand and scotland are previous countries who have taken the position of "blame them for everything"

I suggest we use the french next.

Scotland's in europe. but yeah, i say we band together and blame America.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by kaneda

Scotland's in europe. but yeah, i say we band together and blame America.

america is too easy a target. no challenge.

[WhiteLotus]

ok then the ozzies - damn drunk yobs

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

ok then the ozzies - damn drunk yobs

Britain: the only empire to have given its prisoners a better country than its own people. thanks guys!