European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position

[Flyordie]

If Dell, HP, and/or Lenovo truly felt strong armed by Intel, they should have brought it to court at the time it happened. They shouldn't have waited until 2-7 years and have the EU do the talking for them. Either the arrangements were mutually beneficial and both parties are guilty or the arrangements were completely legitimate and both parties are innocent.

Remember, Dell and HP were segment leaders during this period so they are as guilty as Intel on accounts of anti-trust law (assuming they are guilty).



The moment a governing body intervenes in a market, it is no longer "free." Free markets only exist in theory.

I know they were, but it was in the middle of a big PC Market boom, decisions had to be made very fast with little overhead. The CEO's going to the EU would have had drastic side effects of affordable PCs getting to the market. So on one hand, you have supply and the other you have demand... which hand do you want the EU to cut off?

I think that they should have had a % of their profits over the next so many years going towards offsetting the total damages done to consumers (selling products for less profit margin than they would originally) (both parties, Intel and the OEM) on top of the fine.

 

[Benetanegia]

If Dell, HP, and/or Lenovo truly felt strong armed by Intel, they should have brought it to court at the time it happened. They shouldn't have waited until 2-7 years and have the EU do the talking for them. Either the arrangements were mutually beneficial and both parties are guilty or the arrangements were completely legitimate and both parties are innocent.

Remember, Dell and HP were segment leaders during this period so they are as guilty as Intel on accounts of anti-trust law (assuming they are guilty).



The moment a governing body intervenes in a market, it is no longer "free." Free markets only exist in theory.

It's there where you are extremely wrong. The market without any intervention is not fair, is not equal for everybody and is inclined to monopoly. Maybe it was free in the XIX century when companies were local and small and didn't have so much power, but today a company like Intel can do whatever they want with the market. HP and Dell couldn't do anything. An open action against Intel, as has been mentioned here, would have terminated their bussiness. Their bussiness was to sell x amount of PCs and they just couldn't do it without Intel.

And speaking of evidences... How do you all think that the EU has all these e-mails? Do you really think that the companies save all those e-mails forever? If the EU has those e-mails is because they were investigating at the time. And t wouldn't even surprise me if it was one of the PC vendors who first brought to light all this. AMD had no way of knowing anything about this, if they were not told.

In fact I do believe the implication of AMD in all this, legally speaking, is just a mere formality. In the EU, at least, the executive (in any form) can't present a legal complain unless they are the victims. So even if the EC had evidences to form a case, they couldn't do anything unless there was a complainant, hello AMD.

 

[WarEagleAU]

Benet I didnt think of it that way at all, that makes sense though. If they weren't investigating them then, then they may indeed not got the emails. Wow.

 

[troyrae360]

Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
They didn't have a choice...
A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
That OEM would then be forced to offer VIA parts to prevent from being a monopoly for AMD parts...
So which one would you choose?
-
I really don't get you rhino, your speech sounds like a fanboy but at the same time it sounds like a FAR RIGHT (the bad right) business man who supports razing cities to build factories (AKA- Murdering 20,000+ and burning down their houses and schools and parks to build your factory)
---

I Agree!!
It is this mentallity that keeps OUR WORLD (Not Intels, not Microsofts and definitly not the god damn US govenments!!) down and suppressed, its the sole reason there are people diying form starvation and disease in our world yet some people/busness have everything and some,

Greed is killing people!!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I know they were, but it was in the middle of a big PC Market boom, decisions had to be made very fast with little overhead. The CEO's going to the EU would have had drastic side effects of affordable PCs getting to the market. So on one hand, you have supply and the other you have demand... which hand do you want the EU to cut off?

I think that they should have had a % of their profits over the next so many years going towards offsetting the total damages done to consumers (selling products for less profit margin than they would originally) (both parties, Intel and the OEM) on top of the fine.

Why would consumers need a % for damages? They got what they wanted for the price they wanted.

AMD whethered the storm (in fact, they did very well up to late 2005) as well so the argument for anti-trust during this period is very weak. In order for a case to be anti-trust, the competition has to be measurably effected by the agreements.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
They didn't have a choice...
A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
That OEM would then be forced to offer VIA parts to prevent from being a monopoly for AMD parts...
So which one would you choose?
-
I really don't get you rhino, your speech sounds like a fanboy but at the same time it sounds like a FAR RIGHT (the bad right) business man who supports razing cities to build factories (AKA- Murdering 20,000+ and burning down their houses and schools and parks to build your factory)
---

i am not a fanboy, i just am pro free market. nobody was threatened physically or forced into a situation in which they had no choice. the convenient point everyone is forgetting is that the vendors could have gone with AMD. they didnt though because AMD is an inferior disorganized company that you simply would not risk your business on!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's there where you are extremely wrong. The market without any intervention is not fair, is not equal for everybody and is inclined to monopoly.

I never said a free market was fair. Everyone in second place will say it isn't fair. That's how the cookie crumbles.

Maybe it was free in the XIX century when companies were local and small and didn't have so much power, but today a company like Intel can do whatever they want with the market.

False, the FTC would not let Intel buyout AMD which is anti-trust.

HP and Dell couldn't do anything. An open action against Intel, as has been mentioned here, would have terminated their bussiness. Their bussiness was to sell x amount of PCs and they just couldn't do it without Intel.

By terminating their business, Intel would incite an anti-trust response.

And speaking of evidences... How do you all think that the EU has all these e-mails? Do you really think that the companies save all those e-mails forever? If the EU has those e-mails is because they were investigating at the time. And t wouldn't even surprise me if it was one of the PC vendors who first brought to light all this. AMD had no way of knowing anything about this, if they were not told.

The EU can't obtain emails without permission unless they have a warrant. I found no evidence that a warrant was ever issued. Either the emails were handed over by someone willfully or they are a forgery. Their sources aren't given aside from the testimonies. As for the testimonies, the Intel execs may say "we gave Dell/HP/Lenovo a rebate." EC says, "A rebate! Anti-trust!" The EC, with this ruling, basically has set the precedent that rebates are anti-competitive in the EU.

As to your last statement: that is proof this isn't anti-trust. Look at Standard Oil for an example of a real anti-trust scenario. You'd have to be dead not to know it was happening.

 

[TheMailMan78]

1. Testimonies are more than enough for convicting in almost every charge, providing they are coming from more than one place. You don't need to find any physical proof if 10 different people saw you killing someone. Why should this be different?

2. They didn't benefit. First of all, rebates based on volumes are common. The fact that Intel put their conditions to them doesn't mean the vendors wouldn't obtain them anyway in a fair market. In a competitive market, Intel would probably need to offer them even lower prices. And second, they could have sold the AMD systems with a greater margin probably, they were better after all.

3. The fight against monopoly provides us with a free competitive market, which lowers the prices and increases innovation and progress.

1. Again why did they have a change of heart? Because they got caught also? Please.

2. Of course they did. They got a better deal than they ever would with Intel being "regulated". You know how I know? Because they took the F#$KING DEAL. If it wasnt a good one they would have reported Intel on the spot. No guns were held to any OEMs head. Of course this is all assuming any of this happened. I wonder what kind of kick backs the OEMs got for turning against Intel. Maybe some fat government contracts?

3. Whats it like in Elmo's world?

Bottom line is I see no proof other than the EU being thieves.

 

[Frick]

I want someone with some insight in how these kinds of things work in the EU. All the whiners in this thread (no offence!) is from the US, and might have different views on things as the laws aren't really compatible with each other.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I want someone with some insight in how these kinds of things work in the EU. All the whiners in this thread (no offence!) is from the US, and might have different views on things as the laws aren't really compatible with each other.

Are from the U.S. Not "is". Sorry I had to

 

[Frick]

Are from the U.S. Not "is". Sorry I had to

^^

 

[troyrae360]

i am not a fanboy, i just am pro free market. nobody was threatened physically or forced into a situation in which they had no choice. the convenient point everyone is forgetting is that the vendors could have gone with AMD. they didnt though because AMD is an inferior disorganized company that you simply would not risk your business on!

Is AMD really a disorginised company? It would seen that they are first onto the DX11 market, and first to have a 12core CPU I think they have done very well latley, Just think how well they would be doing if it wernt for intels bullying tactics!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I want someone with some insight in how these kinds of things work in the EU. All the whiners in this thread (no offence!) is from the US, and might have different views on things as the laws aren't really compatible with each other.

As for the EU, we'll see how many companies offer rebates anymore, especially those in a dominant position. This ruling set the precendent for any rebate offered by a large company to be grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit.

Is AMD really a disorginised company? It would seen that they are first onto the DX11 market, and first to have a 12core CPU I think they have done very well latley, Just think how well they would be doing if it wernt for intels bullying tactics!

They were disorganized from about December 2005 through mid-2008. They may have gotten their organization set straight by getting rid of Ruiz and completing the acquisition of ATI but they still aren't anywhere close to making up for all the ground they lost.

 

[Frick]

As for the EU, we'll see how many companies offer rebates anymore, especially those in a dominant position. This ruling set the precendent for any rebate offered by a large company to be grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit.

I can't remember I've ever seen a rebate. Some promotional codes sometimes, but a rebate? Never.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Even more suspect.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I can't remember I've ever seen a rebate. Some promotional codes sometimes, but a rebate? Never.

You don't. The OEM does which gives you a better bottom line price.

Also Frick thanks for taking my joke as a joke and not a jab

 

[bat]

I just don't understand how someone so ignorant about the definition of monopoly or unethical business behavior could be be on the staff here. I guess I've just always read the news mostly and not paid much attention to most of the comment sections here (registered just to respond to this thread).

If ANY of the businesses went with AMD they would have gone out of business. Intel would have cut them off from the high majority of their supply and AMD was not big enough to supply the numbers of CPU's that would have been needed to fill the gap (let alone your theory of them ALL going to AMD at the same time and colluding with them).

Not one single business out there starts large. Starbucks, McDonalds, Best Buy, name any company and they all started small and gradually grew their business. Any company can put any other company out of business if they had enough production capacity and money. All they would have to do is undercut their competitors price enough till the other company was out of business. That is unethical, illegal, and immoral. If I had enough money I could build a car company (factories, dealerships, etc), and put all the other companies out of business by selling all my cars for $1 for 5 years (putting a random figure out but if money is no object then I can go however long I need).

Stating anything is ok in business is just outrageous to say the least. Why stop at saying monopolies are ok? Why not say industrial espionage is ok or just bumping off the competition? The world has morals and most sane people see that business ethics is good for all and the practices such as you stated earlier are in fact not. It scares me that there are people like you out there that support such practices.

 

[Benetanegia]

I never said a free market was fair. Everyone in second place will say it isn't fair. That's how the cookie crumbles.

Fair for the consumer, man. See you are not even able to understand this is all about the consumer...

False, the FTC would not let Intel buyout AMD which is anti-trust.

What they did is anti-trust.

By terminating their business, Intel would incite an anti-trust response.

I don't see how. The one thing they can do is do bussiness with whoever they want. As long as they were not ceasing bussiness with some to give an advantage to others, there's no anti-competitive behavior in that at all.

The EU can't obtain emails without permission unless they have a warrant. I found no evidence that a warrant was ever issued. Either the emails were handed over by someone willfully or they are a forgery. Their sources aren't given aside from the testimonies. As for the testimonies, the Intel execs may say "we gave Dell/HP/Lenovo a rebate." EC says, "A rebate! Anti-trust!" The EC, with this ruling, basically has set the precedent that rebates are anti-competitive in the EU.

That's why I said that it wouldn't surprise me that the PC vendors were involved from the beginnning. Let's be clear, it's obvious that someone inside the PC vendors gave that information, it's the official involvement of the vendors which is in question.

Finally, regarding the rebates and whatnot. Please... a rebate is not anti-competitive. A rebate with the condition to cease bussiness with the competitor is. It's not that hard to understand that. This ruling only sets a precedent for the later.

As to your last statement: that is proof this isn't anti-trust.

Maybe you are right.. NO.

 

[LaidLawJones]

Just a question. It has been thrown around about how much better AMD would be doing if they hadn't lost market share and money to Intel. How does this time line coincide with the huge amount of money they put out for ATI instead of reinvesting into their own company for R&D and publicity?

Second question. How much did they pay for ATI?

 

[bat]

Wish I had the figures for sure but I think it was around either 5 or 9 billion (leaning towards 5). Regardless if they had gained that marketshare and money they still would be a lot better off than they are now. They would not have had to borrow nearly as much to finance the puchase and besides the ATI deal seems so far to be paying off quite a bit in current tech when they purchased it, and in tech used in their future products from what I've read.

 

[Benetanegia]

1. Again why did they have a change of heart? Because they got caught also? Please.

And? Sorry but the victims of blackmail are not convicted, even if they fall for it. They are convicted for the illegal things they might do under compulsion, but not for the blackmail, which is illegal by itself. That happens because it's undertood you had no option.

2. Of course they did. They got a better deal than they ever would with Intel being "regulated". You know how I know? Because they took the F#$KING DEAL. If it wasnt a good one they would have reported Intel on the spot. No guns were held to any OEMs head. Of course this is all assuming any of this happened. I wonder what kind of kick backs the OEMs got for turning against Intel. Maybe some fat government contracts?

As I and many have said, they had no option but to take thier discount if they wanted to continue their bussiness, no matter how small the rebate could be. Not to mention that under a trully free x86 market, the prices for Intel CPUs would ave been much much cheaper than they were rebates included.

3. Whats it like in Elmo's world?

So now you're going to say that competition isn't good, right? That fighting monopolies (and Intel is) doesn't increase competition right? CPUs and GPUs are made following almost the same techniques. How is it that GPUs being much bigger and having a PCB, memory, etc. are cheaper and have much much bigger price adjustements? Hell Intel reduces the prices in a timely basis and not based on the competition at all, for God's sake...

Bottom line is I see no proof other than the EU being thieves.

No comment, I would even take offense if that wasn't so pathetically hilarious.

 

[bat]

i am not a fanboy, i just am pro free market. nobody was threatened physically or forced into a situation in which they had no choice. the convenient point everyone is forgetting is that the vendors could have gone with AMD. they didnt though because AMD is an inferior disorganized company that you simply would not risk your business on!

Inferior disorganized company? So you have firsthand knowledge of the company? From the way your posts have read on them so far in this thread it sounds like you have an axe to grind with them for some reason or you're employed by intel. At the very least you sound like a fanboy if neither of them are true.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Fair for the consumer, man. See you are not even able to understand this is all about the consumer...

AMD and Intel were both offering $1000+ and sub $100 processors at the time. If it wasn't fair to the consumer in 2002-2005, it wasn't fair to consumers 1990-2001 and 2006-2009 as well. Again, the signs aren't present that Intel behaved anti-competitively.

What they did is anti-trust.

Says the EU, South Korea, and that's about it. In both cases, the evidence is lacking.

I don't see how. The one thing they can do is do bussiness with whoever they want. As long as they were not ceasing bussiness with some to give an advantage to others, there's no anti-competitive behavior in that at all.

If a monopolistic company uses their position to force a business to buy from another business at a much higher cost in order to drive that business out of the industry, that can be found as anti-competitive behavior under anti-trust laws. The business that went under, or got close to going under, would have to prove that the monopoly holder basically priced them out of market.

Finally, regarding the rebates and whatnot. Please... a rebate is not anti-competitive. A rebate with the condition to cease bussiness with the competitor is. It's not that hard to understand that. This ruling only sets a precedent for the later.

Is there any proof that this condition actually took effect? A lot of businesses drop down to only one supplier because it simplifies everything (support, installation, maintenance, logistics, etc.). Is there any proof that these rebates Intel offered were the sole reason these businesses decided to offer Intel exclusively?

We should also remember that in 2000 is when Intel and AMD parted ways in terms of motherboard sockets (Intel went to Socket 423/427, AMD stayed on Socket A). That introduced a lot of additional expenses in regards to building two types of machines; hence, the need to pick a side to remain profitable. There was a small economic crash in late 2001 following 9/11 which may have easily incited the computer industry to make the change to single-suppliers heading into 2002.

 

[WarEagleAU]

yeah Im not a fan of the disorganized company and being inferior. If they were, then Intel wouldn't have licensed the x86 tech to them and hired them to make cpus for them. What I find funny is now folks are getting mad. No sense in name calling and such.

 

[WarEagleAU]

seems my thanks button is gone, but 10 of you have my thanks