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

Intel Appeals Against $1.3 Billion Fine by EU, from 2009

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 5, 2012.

?

Should Intel pay the fine?

  1. Yes

    50 vote(s)
    79.4%
  2. No

    13 vote(s)
    20.6%
  1. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    Dust actually. It hasn't rained here in weeks. :D

    I fully agree that the EU should be able to mandate it's own laws and that it has nothing to do with US jurisdiction.
    I also agree that if Intel wants to do business in the EU that they have to follow the laws set forth, and that if they are found guilty should have to pay the fines.

    I just think that Intel should fight it to the death because I like the drama.
     
  2. Andy77 New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    119 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Huh... so it not just where I live. Well good from one point, bad from another.

    I don't... every fight costs, not just intel but the EU taxpayer as well.
     
  3. Undead46

    Undead46 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    257 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    USA, Texas
    You guys are crazy...
    If AMD dropped their case, then the EU has to present new evidence stating they broke the law.
    AMD cannot contribute to the case since they settled; the EU cannot obtain said evidence.
    EU can't prove they broke the law, because common sense doesn't work in the legal system.
    Intel doesn't have to pay, their appeal worked.

    Basically how it's going to break down..

    Should they pay? No, because they went through the legal system to avoid paying. Any business owner would have done the same.
     
  4. Andy77 New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    119 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    No, because AMD doesn't hold the evidence, that is held by the OEM's with which intel made verbal agreements during lunch meetings. Which in turn landed in the hands of authorities and can be used to enforce EC's own evidence.

    http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21599.htm

    Like I said, the EU justice system works differently than it does in the US. It's enough to get notice that lets say Dell refused to add AMD to their lineup when Athlon64 was released, that's before Christmas 2003 - a big sales period, and we have Michael Dell's "testimony" in which he clearly states AMD isn't worth it so no, AMD won't appear in Dell systems, which then in 2004 still happens because Pentium 4 were seen as a weaker options and pressure was made to include Athlon64's in their systems. It's enough to notice that a business man like Michael D., making some strange comments which didn't hold any water, didn't act in the best interest of his company by acknowledging the better product and offering solution as such.

    Wouldn't you lets say as an investor find it strange if your CEO made a business decision that in effect would produce loss of image as a brand, clients and money? Keep in mind, that as an investor you have a much higher power of control over security in your company, compared to execs - i.e. your "labors", and can in effect gather evidence that the dealings your CEO and co. (aka the foot-soldiers) made with intel actually were a big screw-up for you.

    Rising an eyebrow and then finding some... skeletons.

    That's all it takes to become suspicious, and inquiries then can prove those suspicions right or wrong.
     
  5. Cruncher Pete

    Cruncher Pete New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    18 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    As I am only a private user of both Intel and AMD chips, I see this as a loss to me for whatever happens, ultimately it will be the user who pays the cost as it will be past on. The lawyers will be winning as usual.
     
  6. babash*t

    babash*t New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    74 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Location:
    Nairobi, Kenya
    Intel should be judged guilty/pay up.. hoping that will mean more availability of amd products(compared to Intel) thus better competition - prices from both, WIn for the end user
     
  7. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,886 (3.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,395
    That would require AMD to actually develop and release those CPU's, which they can't, and having them perform the same as Intel, which they won't (at the higher end). CPU's from all sides are readily avaliable.
     
  8. Andy77 New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    119 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Well, considering that those deals were made since 2000 or so I'd say intel and co.'s customers are already paying for years, intel just banked it all in the event it got caught and now that it did it has to cough up the dough. That's actually your money, Pete, not intel's.
     

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

Share This Page