Now US Inclines to Fine Intel for Antitrust Malpractice

[TheMailMan78]

Really? I always got the impression that USA only does things in large sizes or not at all. Hang on i'll try and find something to show you what i mean.

yea see here:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-784-billion-trillion/

Rather funny if you ask me.

Lotus you're 100% right. We go big or go home. Everything is knee jerk and over the top. Its the American way! mdm-adph is not REALLY American. Think east of you. A little past Germany and a little west of Japan.

 

[Fx]

thats right- we go balls deep baby

 

[rpsgc]

So where are all the comments about thieving, socialism and commies? Oh right, if the US does it then it's OK.

 

[Fx]

So where are all the comments about thieving, socialism and commies? Oh right, if the US does it then it's OK.

I hate ppl that love to hate

 

[rpsgc]

I hate ppl that love to hate

I happen to dislike hypocrites, so?

 

[TheMailMan78]

I happen to dislike hypocrites, so?

No I still think the fine is wrong. The U.S. is just jumping on the ban wagon now.....IF this is confirmed. So kindly get off of your high horse. The U.S. government is on a fast track to all those crappy things you just mentioned. Except the thief part. They have that down pat.

As a matter of fact I even predicted the U.S. would follow suit.

 

[mdm-adph]

Really? I always got the impression that USA only does things in large sizes or not at all. Hang on i'll try and find something to show you what i mean.

yea see here:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-784-billion-trillion/

Rather funny if you ask me.

One man's ridiculous lawsuit does not represent the US as a whole, thank goodness.

When I say "I doubt that," I mean that I doubt that the radically pro-business US government (regardless of what party is currently in power) will take meaningful sanctions against one of its biggest companies. Is that so hard to believe?

If it's bad for business, it ain't gonna happen.

Lotus you're 100% right. We go big or go home. Everything is knee jerk and over the top. Its the American way! mdm-adph is not REALLY American. Think east of you. A little past Germany and a little west of Japan.

I assure you that I'm not Polish-Chinese. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those two countries. Though I do happen to love both pierogi and dumplings.

 

[Wile E]

So where are all the comments about thieving, socialism and commies? Oh right, if the US does it then it's OK.

I don't think it's ok at all. I think it's bs. The OEMs are just as much to blame. If you are going to fine Intel, the OEMs responsible should be fined as well.

And to be honest, I don't see a problem with offering discounts for exclusivity rights anyway, so I don't think this should have ever been a case in the first place. Offer discounts is not illegal, regardless of market position.

Now, if intel said x cpu's normal price is $200, but if you also use AMD, we'll make it $400, then yeah, that's illegal.

Now, if Intel said the normal price is $200, but if you give us exclusivity, we'll give them to you for $150, that's perfectly OK.

 

[troyrae360]

Now, if intel said x cpu's normal price is $200, but if you also use AMD, we'll make it $400, then yeah, that's illegal.

In short i think thats exactley what they done

 

[TheMailMan78]

In short i think thats exactley what they done

No its not. Not even close.

 

[Benetanegia]

In short i think thats exactley what they done

Exactly. It's not as if Intels sells their chips at bargain prces. It doesn't matter if they say it in one way or another. The "rebate" was offered for everyone so in effect is as if they said they would charge more if you went with AMD, basically because all the PC vendors had to go with Intel anyway. That is, ALL PC vendors depended on Intel chips. All of them need to buy from Intel, if by going with AMD they don't get te rebate that EVERYONE ELSE is getting, then they are getting punished and that's illegal by all means.

 

[Wile E]

Exactly. It's not as if Intels sells their chips at bargain prces. It doesn't matter if they say it in one way or another. The "rebate" was offered for everyone so in effect is as if they said they would charge more if you went with AMD, basically because all the PC vendors had to go with Intel anyway. That is, ALL PC vendors depended on Intel chips. All of them need to buy from Intel, if by going with AMD they don't get te rebate that EVERYONE ELSE is getting, then they are getting punished and that's illegal by all means.

I still don't see it that way. It's not Intel's fault AMD couldn't provide enough cpus to meet demand, forcing companies to need to buy Intel cpus. There were plenty of OEMs that still offered AMD cpus back then, so it's not as if the discounts would make or break the OEMs. The OEMs just wanted higher profit margins, so they took the rebates.

Still don't see how offering rebates should be illegal, nor will I ever agree with that sentiment.

 

[Benetanegia]

I still don't see it that way. It's not Intel's fault AMD couldn't provide enough cpus to meet demand, forcing companies to need to buy Intel cpus. There were plenty of OEMs that still offered AMD cpus back then, so it's not as if the discounts would make or break the OEMs. The OEMs just wanted higher profit margins, so they took the rebates.

Still don't see how offering rebates should be illegal, nor will I ever agree with that sentiment.

I think there's something you guys need to understand: doing that is illegal. Whether you agree with that or not it doesn't matter. I myself think that downloading songs in mp3 shouldn't be illegal, but I know it is, I accept it, I don't do it and more importantly I don't post in long threads about how I don't agree with something that is illegal. On top of that it is illegal for a good reason, that I don't really understand why, apparently you all can't understand.

 

[Wile E]

I think there's something you guys need to understand: doing that is illegal. Whether you agree with that or not it doesn't matter. I myself think that downloading songs in mp3 shouldn't be illegal, but I know it is, I accept it, I don't do it and more importantly I don't post in long threads about how I don't agree with something that is illegal. On top of that it is illegal for a good reason, that I don't really understand why, apparently you all can't understand.

No, offering rebates is not illegal.

 

[Benetanegia]

No, offering rebates is not illegal.

Offering rebates by itself is not. Doing it under the conditions that Intel did is illegal. Again, you'll have to get over it, it's illegal, they have been found guilty in EU, Corea and Japan and now they are under the microscope in the US too. Enough is enough.

Killing is a crime? Wasting a life is a moral crime no matter what, but when it comes to legality, it depends on how and why. Self-defense? At war? Policemen on duty... All different conditions that lead to a different status of legality for the act of killing. Bussiness is the same and what Intel did is absolutely, irremediably 100% illegal, according to anti-trust laws worldwide (it just happens to be immoral too BTW). FTC is not deliberating about if they think what Intel did is illegal, they know it is. They are just deliberating if it's worth taking them to court.

 

[Wile E]

Offering rebates by itself is not. Doing it under the conditions that Intel did is illegal. Again, you'll have to get over it, it's illegal, they have been found guilty in EU, Corea and Japan and now they are under the microscope in the US too. Enough is enough.

Killing is a crime? Wasting a life is a moral crime no matter what, but when it comes to legality, it depends on how and why. Self-defense? At war? Policemen on duty... All different conditions that lead to a different status of legality for the act of killing. Bussiness is the same and what Intel did is absolutely, irremediably 100% illegal, according to anti-trust laws worldwide. FTC is not deliberating about if they think what Intel did is illegal, they know it is. They are just deliberating if it's worth taking them to court.

What does the EU, Japan and Korea have anything to do with the US?

It isn't illegal to offer rebates. I maintain that what they did is not illegal, and if the US decides it is, it's only because they decided to stretch the meaning of the current law to fit the situation so they could find them guilty.

Now, if they threatened some other action, like reducing output to short the demand, or they flat out said we will raise prices if you allow AMD, then yeah, that's illegal. If they offered a starting price, then said will will reduce the price by x% if you give us exclusivity, then no, their action wasn't illegal.

So no, enough of bringing up the other govt entities that attacked Intel with their ridiculously anti-business laws, when they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the US case.

And besides all of that, even if it is illegal, it doesn't make the law just and right, and doesn't make it any less bs. An unjust law is just as bs as being charged guilty for a crime that you didn't commit.

 

[Benetanegia]

What does the EU, Japan and Korea have anything to do with the US?

It isn't illegal to offer rebates. I maintain that what they did is not illegal, and if the US decides it is, it's only because they decided to stretch the meaning of the current law to fit the situation so they could find them guilty.

Now, if they threatened some other action, like reducing output to short the demand, or they flat out said we will raise prices if you allow AMD, then yeah, that's illegal. If they offered a starting price, then said will will reduce the price by x% if you give us exclusivity, then no, their action wasn't illegal.

So no, enough of bringing up the other govt entities that attacked Intel with their ridiculously anti-business laws, when they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the US case.

Oh, it had to happen. Everytime something like this is discussed the ugly head of US xenophobia has to appear. And of course if they are being investigated in the US now it's because of the influence from other countries and not because it's illegal and always has been. Sorry but you all are VERY wrong and base all your "I think it's pro-bussiness, but don't have a clue" thoughts on laws that were stablished and writen in a constitution 300 years ago. See, anti-trust laws are much more modern, and bettter thought and thanks god, the people in charge of adopting them in the US were smart enough, so you have them there too.

 

[Wile E]

Oh, it had to happen. Everytime something like this is discussed the ugly head of US xenophobia has to appear. And of course if they are being investigated in the US now it's because of the influence from other countries and not because it's illegal and always has been. Sorry but you all are VERY wrong and base all your "I think it's pro-bussiness, but don't have a clue" thoughts on laws that were stablished and writen in a constitution 300 years ago. See, anti-trust laws are much more modern, and bettter thought and thanks god, the people in charge of adopting them in the US were smart enough, so you have them there too.

But they aren't the same. And even if they were, they shouldn't be. I'm rather disappointed the US has gone to the trend of adopting these types of laws. The country has been in a relatively steady decline since they have.

So, you can spin it any way you want, the US market is not the same as the EU, Japan or Korea. The number of markets having these laws still doesn't make them just.

 

[Benetanegia]

But they aren't the same. And even if they were, they shouldn't be. I'm rather disappointed the US has gone to the trend of adopting these types of laws. The country has been in a relatively steady decline since they have.

So, you can spin it any way you want, the US market is not the same as the EU, Japan or Korea. The number of markets having these laws still doesn't make them just.

You can spin it too as much as you can, that doesn't change the fact that the law is right and you are blatantly wrong. Laws are made and adopted by people that know much more about the subject than you and me, and they do it for a very good reason. You fighting against this law is no different at all from the south fighting against slavery eradication back in the day.

Besides, your country has been in a decline not precisely because of the laws adopted, but because of the lack of proper management from your past government and the permissiveness towards these overpowered companies. It's been in a decline because the companies there actually have more power than the government and companies don't give a rat's ass about your country (however it's said).

* If you really really want to know why your country is in a decline I'll gladly tell you. It's because what you (americans) use to call pro-bussiness model there is based and has always been based in overriding competition fromm the outside. That proved to be very successful in the past, when the US was the only economic/industrial powerhouse and thus it exported much more than it imported, while at the same time it mantained a healthy and expensive internal econmy based on consumtion and tradition. For example in the car industry that goes for General Motors, etc. But when competition came from the outside and happened to be stronger, the US companies unable to change the strategy ad unable to fight the external threat with the weapons at their disposal they had no option but to fight the local "small" competition. That is hurt one US company to make their other US company survive, but destroying the economy in the process.

 

[Wile E]

You can spin it too as much as you can, that doesn't change the fact that the law is right and you are blatantly wrong. Laws are made and adopted by people that know much more about the subject than you and me, and they do it for a very good reason. You fighting against this law is no different at all from the south fighting against slavery eradication back in the day.

Besides, your country has been in a decline not precisely because of the laws adopted, but because of the lack of proper management from your past government and the permissiveness towards these overpowered companies. It's been in a decline because the companies there actually have more power than the government.

No, I'm not blatantly wrong. If you honestly believe that laws are always made with our best intentions involved, or that all laws are just because the law makers passed them, you are seriously naive.

Here is a newsflash, the majority of the law makers don't actually know a damn thing about business or even moral subjects for that matter. All they know about is what fattens their wallet.

And to compare this to slavery is just shameful on your part. This is no where near as black and white as slavery. That's about as much spin as you can get right there. It almost borders on a child's argument.

And look into history a bit more. The decline of the US didn't start to happen until these laws started coming into existence.

 

[Benetanegia]

No, I'm not blatantly wrong. If you honestly believe that laws are always made with our best intentions involved, or that all laws are just because the law makers passed them, you are seriously naive.

Here is a newsflash, the majority of the law makers don't actually know a damn thing about business or even moral subjects for that matter. All they know about is what fattens their wallet.

And to compare this to slavery is just shameful on your part. This is no where near as black and white as slavery. That's about as much spin as you can get right there. It almost borders on a child's argument.

This law is for the better of us. Competition is always for the better of us, consumers and any law that punishes the companies that try to take their comtetition down with dirty tactics is pro consumers. I can and do compare this to slavery, because we are slaved by these companies, although you are unable to see it.

And look into history a bit more. The decline of the US didn't start to happen until these laws started coming into existence.

Pure coincidence. Although I'm willing to accept that this laws had something to do too. After all, these laws prevent malpractices in the bussinesses and I can decidedly see that as an obstacle to many US companies.

It's a shame that fair competition hampers the US economy. Sorry guys, the teacher came in, put bullying to an end and you no longer are the king of the playard.

 

[Wile E]

This law is for the better of us. Competition is always for the better of us, consumers and any law that punishes the companies that try to take their comtetition down with dirty tactics is pro consumers. I can and do compare this to slavery, because we are slaved by these companies, although you are unable to see it.



Pure coincidence.

Rebates aren't dirty tactics, so no, your comparison does not hold water. And you are slaved by your govt, tho you are unable to see it.

And "pure coincidence" is nothing more than a copout on your part.

I still see nothing that suggests rebates are illegal or even morally wrong.

 

[Benetanegia]

Rebates aren't dirty tactics, so no, your comparison does not hold water. And you are slaved by your govt, tho you are unable to see it.

And "pure coincidence" is nothing more than a copout on your part.

I still see nothing that suggests rebates are illegal or even morally wrong.

Again? You are going in circles? Maybe it's because you have problems with reading. Let's see:

REBATES ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Offering rebates to ONE company is not illegal. USING THEM TO PREVENT THE COMPETITION FROM COMPETING AT ALL, BY OFFERING EXCLUSIVITY REBATES TO ALL CUSTOMERS IS ILLEGAL. Basically if you are going to offer rebates to all your customers, you might as well sell your product cheaper.

I'm just trying to help, since apparently you got stuck in the beginning of conversation.

 

[Wile E]

Again? You are going in circles? Maybe it's because you have problems with reading. Let's see:

REBATES ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Offering rebates to ONE company is not illegal. USING THEM TO PREVENT THE COMPETITION FROM COMPETING AT ALL, BY OFFERING EXCLUSIVITY REBATES TO ALL CUSTOMERS IS ILLEGAL. Basically if you are going to offer rebates to all your customers, you might as well sell your product cheaper.

I'm just trying to help, since apparently you got stuck in the beginning of conversation.

I got what you said. I still disagree completely. Rebates are not illegal, regardless of how many you offer them to. The number of people you offer a rebate to should be completely inconsequential. There were plenty of OEMs that didn't take the offer and still sold AMD, so the rebates obviously weren't all that great. They certainly weren't going to make or break the OEM's, so how does all fault fall on Intel? The OEM's still had to agree to the deals.

I think you need to relax. I think you are wrong, plain and simple, and until you can provide me with different facts, you are going in circles just as much as I am.

 

[Benetanegia]

I got what you said. I still disagree completely. Rebates are not illegal, regardless of how many you offer them to. There were plenty of OEMs that didn't take the offer, so the rebates obviously weren't all that great. They certainly weren't going to make or break the OEM's, so how does all fault fall on Intel? The OEM's still had to agree to the deals.

I think you need to relax. I think you are wrong, plain and simple, and until you can provide me with different facts, you are going in circles just as much as I am.

There's a difference between you and me. Your own legal system and government backs me up on this. And the rest in the world, of course.