1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

EU Fines Intel a Record €1.06 Billion in Antitrust Case

Discussion in 'News' started by alexp999, May 13, 2009.

  1. Evo85

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    459 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    While I agree with the decision, the fine is absolutely stupid. And just contributes to the "sue happy" world we live in......
     
  2. allen337

    allen337

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    959 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Location:
    Danville IL
    Intel should sue every company they gave a discount to and get their money back to pay the fine, that would make EU's BS go away. If it was breaking the law the buyers of the intel products knew also. Sue em Intel.
     
  3. Sihastru

    Sihastru

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    357 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    67
    Location:
    You are here.
    I thought we were having a discussion on an open forum. You say something, I reply. I say something, you reply. I don't think I am out of line just because I am trying to defend my point. Calling me a troll (publicly, of all the possible ways) doesn't make me wrong. It just gives me more power.

    If you don't want news to be open to discussion, close the threads. I think a news this important deserves an open discussion, with somewhat deeper remarks then just the traditional "serves them right!".

    I will just say one last thing, then I will not post on this thread anymore. I have other posts in other threads, people actually considered me helpful. I don't have that many posts, you can check them.

    About what I want to say, on the topic. An exclusivity contract is an exclusivity contract. You get rebates because you are exclusive (by definition). If you don't want to be exclusive, no problem, but you don't get the rebate, you pay the full price. There is no mention that the ones that wouldn't be exclusive would pay anything on top of the full price.

    Anyway, smarter people then me (us) made the decision. And their decision is final (pending appeal). So that is it. Over and out.
     
  4. derFeef

    derFeef New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    But the contract was something like this:
    Don not sell AMD products and you will get rebates with our products. Thats not a legal contract and this is what everything is about.
     
  5. Darknova

    Darknova

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    535
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    Anti-competition laws are there to stop one company becoming the dominant power in the market and forcing all the other businesses out of the market.

    I'm sure I don't need to explain how bad it would be for the consumers if Intel was the only company in the x86 market? Stagnant market, no innovation, a company that can set WHATEVER price it wants. That is very bad for us.

    Whatever you think of the A-C laws, what Intel did was against the law, they set out to force AMD out of business by forcing the OEMs, and smaller business to buy their products via various means. That is illegal, therefore they should be punished.
     
  6. Scrizz

    Scrizz

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,980 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Location:
    Florida, US
    w8, so once a small company becomes successful and grows then they get fined for being top dog?
     
  7. Valdez

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    294 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Location:
    Szekszárd, Hungary
    No, please read the topic, before you post something silly.
     
  8. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    top dog is not god to do whatever they want....
     
  9. gumpty

    gumpty

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    744 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    134
    Location:
    Auckland
    We're all paying for Intel's crimes ...

    Suck it Intel. :D

    All of you realise that we are paying for these crimes right now, don't you?

    These anti-competitive practices were happening back in the days when AMD had processors that could actually compete with Intel's across the board. Because Intel limited and restricted the amount of AMD CPUs that were sold (and sold more of their own), AMD had less money to spend on R&D (and Intel had more). Consequently Intel comes out with Core 2 & i7 & AMD have fallen behind.

    Imagine if AMD had had more $$ to research better CPUs? We might have been at a point now where AMD's Phenoms were competing with the i7. Therefore the i7 would probably be a damn sight cheaper. But they're not. We lose. We're stuck paying $1000+ for extreme series processors cause they have nothing to compete against. We lose.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
    marsey99, Darknova and HTC say thanks.
  10. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,244 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    This is why i agree that Intel should be fined.

    Only $1.06 Billion? Intel must be laughing hard: they gave a very serious blow to AMD (worth far more then this fine over the years, IMHO) and only pay this amount when they made $33.8 billion in 2008?

    If i were the Intel CEO, i ought to be thinking something like this: "Outstanding!! We've crippled the competition severely and only have this to pay!"


    For Intel, doing this payed off :mad:
     
  11. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    They'll pay the fine out of the change tin on the ceo's desk.
     
  12. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,959 (11.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Notice I said "up to". :)

    W1zzard is right. In this conspiracy, Intel ended up gaining more than what the fine imposed attempts to put a stop to. In essence, all these years of proven malpractices were worth it, despite the fine. 1.06 B Euro really is peanuts at the macro-level. All these repercussions IMO are image cleanup, and sympathy harvest that automatically follow such judgements, in order to cushion the stock-price, and preventing a trench.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  13. gumpty

    gumpty

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    744 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    134
    Location:
    Auckland

    Agreed.

    People here are getting riled up about how huge the fine is. €1,060,000,000 is a LOT of money to you, me, and Fred next door; but to Intel, who are worth €85,000,000,000+, it is nothing more than a kick in the nuts. It'll hurt for a bit, and the shareholders will be pissy come the AGM, but they'll get back up and keep riding the wave of the better products they could afford to research with the extra money that these crimes generated.
     
  14. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,244 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    I know. Even if the fine was the whole $3.8 billion, it would still be "pocket change" for Intel.

    IMHO, a $20 billion fine would be a start ...
     
  15. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,959 (11.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    $20 B would mean no more Intel in EU for a few years, reason being that Intel would not pay up and simply quit the market (and end up saving in the process). EU won't remain a viable market to sell in. No company in its right mind would pay that much. EU knows it can't overdo this. Market demand, AMD and other CPU makers exploiting conditions, and illegal imports would dent EU, which will then be forced to reconsider the fine. 1.06 B however, doesn't strike the threshold. Intel still has a lot to lose if it doesn't pay up that money.
     
    HTC says thanks.
  16. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,244 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    I see your point, and i have to agree: Intel would simply not sell to the EU, but they would still have to pay the fine.

    There's a way to counter this, though: have EVERYBODY (countries) fine Intel. If so, Intel wouldn't stop selling everywhere, would they?


    Still, how much do you think AMD lost?

    If Intel hadn't done this, do you agree that AMD would have a better market share of the CPU market?

    Let's imagine that AMD would have 15% more market share then it currently has: how much do you think that is worth? A TON more then the fine and don't forget to multiply that figure by the years this was going on ...
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  17. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,959 (11.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    EU lacks the capability to do that. Defaulting the fine would affect Intel's operations only in EU, nowhere else.
     
  18. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,244 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    Yes, yes: i know. What i meant was to have all the other countries present Intel with a fine of their own.

    Since the EU can't go after Intel the way they should, the combined fine (total from all the countries) should make a more realistic number: this way, Intel would be properly fined for it's dirty business practices.
     
  19. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    14,031 (5.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,423
    I have never heard of Intel giving consumers 'rebates' to use their products, same as most other hardware manufacturers. Seems schemes like this only exist outside Europe.
     
  20. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,274 (2.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    968
    This is just ASKING for Intel to innovate like this:

    1./ Implement a CPU with "licensed" not purchased microcode
    2./ Annual fee of $10 to use, just like a road-tax license imposed by governments. The fee could be "waived" at the discretion of Intel, unless
    3./ They get dicked around, in which case, the fee becomes due for immediate payment, else
    4./ CPUs stop working as soon as they phone home through the internet

    Part 4 works if the CPU needs to dial home once in a while to validate the license, otherwise, they expire.
     
  21. Millenia

    Millenia New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    99 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Location:
    Turenki, Finland
    No, they were offering rebates to business partners (mainly companies like HP, Fujitsu-Siemens etc) with very strict conditions, effectively nearly forcing OEMs to build Intel systems. This resulted in a situation where AMD would have had to sell their CPUs to business partners for a LOT less than they cost to manufacture, and with AMD being the smaller company here they couldn't afford to.
     
  22. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,959 (11.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    If moving all countries to do the same thing was that easy, mankind would have colonized the moon, Mars, and Europa by now.
     
  23. Darknova

    Darknova

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    535
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    No, there's a difference between a company that becomes successful through it's own marketing and products, and a company that becomes successful by bribing others.
     
  24. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    i forget...

    is not only Intel fault;the companies who has bought with special rebates are guilty also; they have charged the final consumer with a high profit margin;they deserve also to be fined
     
  25. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,818 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,275
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    No matter how you cut it, one billion euros seems kinda harsh doesn't it?

    I mean, it's not like Intel didn't break the law, and I'm all for breaking bad corporate practices, but with the economy being as bad as it is, do you really think its necessary to rule a fine so high? I know it wont put Intel out of bussiness neither, but in times like this when PC sales are down overall (even Atom shipments have decreased by 33% this quarter) do you have to necessarily beat them to the ground? (even tough Intel has enough cash to pay the fine...).

    The point is they were found guilty by a jury and all, and they certainly have to pay for it and stop these practices immediately; but how do they determine consumers in general have been affectted to the tune of one billion euros by their practices?

    Besides, is this money going to be used to benefit the consumers in the end? What will the EU do with all this money? Send relief checks to anyone who bought a PC in Europe in the last 10 years?

    Just my two cents...
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page