Now US Inclines to Fine Intel for Antitrust Malpractice

[Wile E]

They probably got to see it.

Nope, didn't even get to look at it. Went straight to the govts involved.

 

[Benetanegia]

Nope, didn't even get to look at it. Went straight to the govts involved.

First of all, Intel has not paid, so no one has seen a penny and second AMD will probably see the money:

AMD's private antitrust case also alleges Intel rebates conditioned on exclusivity or near exclusivity and Intel payments conditioned on delaying AMD-based products, Wolin said--and any settlement awards or damages that Intel might end up paying in that case would go to AMD, not wronged taxpayers. That case is scheduled to go to trial in March 2010.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10239904-92.html

Anyway AMD wouldn't have to see any money from the fine imposed, because the fine was for damaging the consumers, not AMD, for damaging the market in general which belongs to us, the consumers. Intel damaged AMD directly, but in the process the consumer was damaged, which is what the EU commision is after. As the article says, damages to AMD will be judged later.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I'm at my best when you think I'm at my worst.

Naaa I accepted you were a dick a long time ago.

That's pre-9/11 thinking there, sonny. The US has been performing "indefinite detention without trial" for a while now, and not just of foreign nationals, either. That "innocent unless proven guilty" crap died a long time ago, even in the US.

Sucks when one's own medicine is used against them, eh?:

I'm typing from Gitmo right now teaching the Taliban how to OC their IED's.

I... seriously can't believe you, of all people, just said that.

Why? I've always given respect to everyone on the forum that has shown me respect. I joke with you all the time and your a commie bastard. The TPU community is an international home for PC dorks alike. We all have things in common and thats what we should focus on. However threads like this take away from the focus of what we REALLY care about and it forces all of us to rear our ugly ideology's.

You know what the sad part is? Not a damn one of us really knows WTF is going on. We talk crap and take shots in the dark because if we REALLY knew what was going on we wouldn't be arguing.

BTA posted a picture on GN that hit home for me. Believe it or not it was a picture of a bus. On the back of the bus it said this..."No one remains a virgin. Life f$#ks everyone." Truer words have never been spoken. Them Indians know their s#$t.

Now lets get back on topic and try to be more constructive about this thread.

Does anyone know WHO started the investigation here in the US?

 

[Wile E]

First of all, Intel has not paid, so no one has seen a penny and second AMD will probably see the money:



http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10239904-92.html

Anyway AMD wouldn't have to see any money from the fine imposed, because the fine was for damaging the consumers, not AMD, for damaging the market in general which belongs to us, the consumers. Intel damaged AMD directly, but in the process the consumer was damaged, which is what the EU commision is after. As the article says, damages to AMD will be judged later.

Different cases. The EU case was not AMD's private case that you are listing now. In the EU case, the fines go straight to the EU. They are fines, not winnings such that occur in a civil case. The civil case has yet to be tried.

So no, AMD will not see a dime from the EU case.

 

[WhiteLotus]

So no, AMD will not see a dime from the EU case.

and they shouldn't anyway.

 

[Chad Boga]

First of all, Intel has not paid,

Intel has paid and the money is sitting in an account, pending the appeal process Intel will go through.

 

[Benetanegia]

Different cases. The EU case was not AMD's private case that you are listing now. In the EU case, the fines go straight to the EU. They are fines, not winnings such that occur in a civil case. The civil case has yet to be tried.

So no, AMD will not see a dime from the EU case.

Like I said, they don't have to.

 

[MilkyWay]

Wait if the fines go out to the EU who gets the money i mean the EU is made up of 27 nations!
USA learned from the best so its only appropriate that it tries to sue Intel just like us Europeans lol.


I dont care if you dont like it, its like MP expenses row in the UK. It was in the rules for the MP's to rip the taxpayer for expense claims but it wasn't morally correct or fair to abuse the system that was in place. Once we found out the rules where being abused we where like ah shit!

There are 2 kinds of people in that situation the ones who say you did act in the rules although unfairly and abusively but shouldnt pay it all back because you did act in the rules at the time, (like abusing your fair usage policy with your broadband supplier by dl'ing porn all the time) or you say oops you got caught and should pay it all back for being sneaky and being arseholes and abusing the system.

They did things like say their second house was their proper home and claim on their real house which was obviously a much bigger house so they paid less on mortgages.

A bit like what i figure Intel has done, totally abused the market but maybe not broken any rules (maybe has dunno yet). For the record MP's are being made to pay back all the expenses they swindled out of us because even tho they never broke the rules they still abused them and must be punished for that.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Wait if the fines go out to the EU who gets the money i mean the EU is made up of 27 nations!

All those projects you see that have a nice plaque stating that it was partially funded by the EU. Bingo.

SO most likely the money will go to developing countries so the can get their infrastructure up and running as that will boost the EU as a whole.

 

[Benetanegia]

http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221600280&cid=RSSfeed_eetimes_newsRSS

New York joins the party.

 

[Wile E]

Yay!!! Let's all cash in on the major corporation!!!!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221600280&cid=RSSfeed_eetimes_newsRSS

New York joins the party.

The State of New York is $3.0 billion in debt--the most of any state. Coincidence?

 

[TheMailMan78]

The State of New York is $3.0 billion in debt--the most of any state. Coincidence?

How in the hell is NY in debt?! They have some of the highest state taxes in the U.S.?! It must be all those "Social Programs" they finance.

 

[mdm-adph]

How in the hell is NY in debt?! They have some of the highest state taxes in the U.S.?! It must be all those "Social Programs" they finance.

Please show me a list of states in the US that aren't in debt. Taxes have nothing to do with it.

 

[Flyordie]

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.

LOL AT WILE E.

WILE E seems to be a supporter of Reaganomics... which just made me check for coins cause that stuff is scary and causes collapses of global economies just as we have seen here recently... (the 2008-2009 recession..)
---
What WILE refuses to acknowledge is this- Intel provided stipulation of this- "You will only get rebates if you buy LESS than 20% of your stock from other companies."

WILE E refuses to see that one important ILLEGAL detail.. sad to say though, I have seen it multiple times, and each time it comes back to bite them in the ass... Sorry WILE E, but I have to disagree on you disagree'n with Benetanegia

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Please show me a list of states in the US that aren't in debt. Taxes have nothing to do with it.

All the states not on the list are operating in the green (27 are listed). Taxes, being a state's primary source of income, have a lot to do with it. Deficits are created by the state spending too much for the taxes they collect to cover it.

 

[Flyordie]

All the states not on the list are operating in the green (27 are listed). Taxes, being a state's primary source of income, have a lot to do with it. Deficits are created by the state spending too much for the taxes they collect to cover it.

^^That^^

 

[mdm-adph]

All the states not on the list are operating in the green (27 are listed). Taxes, being a state's primary source of income, have a lot to do with it. Deficits are created by the state spending too much for the taxes they collect to cover it.

...or by taxing so little that they don't have enough money to cover essential services (I'd imagine this is the case in such "red" states as Idaho and Oklahoma). Nor does a very "blue" state necessarily run up a deficit (like Delaware, a state that I'd imagine has tons of public services).

Perhaps I should've said "excessive taxes don't necessarily imply a budget deficit."

^^That^^

If you have nothing more to add than "^^That^^", you probably don't know what you're saying "^^That^^" to, anyway. So hush.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

States know approximately how much they are going to take in on a year to year basis (budgets). Most states are running a deficit now because of the unemployed. Unemployed citizens pay very little in taxes and at the same time, they are a burden on the state through unemployment claims/compensation. There's more to it than that (e.g. buget surplus carry over, other unexpected expensese like natural disaster, and just plain bad fiscal management) but, because this is off topic, I won't respond to that subject further.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Please let this thread die guys?! This thread is like a wooly mammoth of bull sh!t stuck in a tar pit of ignorance.

 

[Ahhzz]

I agree that it will not benefit the consumer, but they need to be punished in some way for underhand practices so they dont happen again. If this was allowed to happen without punishment, then in the long run this would hurt the consumer as the competition would go under and intel would create (as stated above) a monopoly.

Its unfair and un lawful for companys to do this.

True, this needs to be proven, but this has already been proven in europe and other contries, so i think this will be the case in the US also.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with paying back the consumer, and altho I wish it did, nor does it send money to AMD, as they're not filing the lawsuit. However, it does address the fact that they did something WRONG. And irregardless of whether the Commission is going after them because they see other gov'ts getting money this way and we need it, or they genuinely want to make sure that Big Business toes the line, I'm all for it. They screwed up. They need to be held accountable. We've had too many businesses over here lately that screwed over everyone from the common Mom and Pop shareholder to the family goat, and we're propping them up and telling them "It's ok, we'll cover it". I'm ready to say "You 4ucked up. Pay for it."

 

[Wile E]

LOL AT WILE E.

WILE E seems to be a supporter of Reaganomics... which just made me check for coins cause that stuff is scary and causes collapses of global economies just as we have seen here recently... (the 2008-2009 recession..)
---
What WILE refuses to acknowledge is this- Intel provided stipulation of this- "You will only get rebates if you buy LESS than 20% of your stock from other companies."

WILE E refuses to see that one important ILLEGAL detail.. sad to say though, I have seen it multiple times, and each time it comes back to bite them in the ass... Sorry WILE E, but I have to disagree on you disagree'n with Benetanegia

Did they actually come out and say if you buy AMD, we will charge you more, or did they say if you buy exclusively from us, we'll make it cheaper? Big difference between the 2.

And yeah, I support many of the ideas behind Reaganomics, and no, this current recession isn't because of that type of policy, this current recession is from the opposite of reaganomics.

 

[mdm-adph]

Did they actually come out and say if you buy AMD, we will charge you more, or did they say if you buy exclusively from us, we'll make it cheaper? Big difference between the 2.

And yeah, I support many of the ideas behind Reaganomics, and no, this current recession isn't because of that type of policy, this current recession is from the opposite of reaganomics.

Everything that I've ever seen says that they said "if you buy from AMD, we won't sell to you at all." Which would've been bad.

 

[Beertintedgoggles]

Everything that I've ever seen says that they said "if you buy from AMD, we won't sell to you at all." Which would've been bad.

This is how I've understood the situation from the beginning, that Intel was implying if a distributor bought x % of their CPUs from someone else they would loose their discount pricing. I have no problem with companies doing volume discounts; however, to add a stipulation that regardless if you're buying the same volume but also buying a certain quantity from AMD (or whoever) you'd lose that discount should be illegal. Lawful discounts should come from how many of our chips are you buying, what else you are buying should not be a factor at all. If the laws aren't written this way they certainly should be in the land of Beertintedgoggles.

 

[Flyordie]

Did they actually come out and say if you buy AMD, we will charge you more, or did they say if you buy exclusively from us, we'll make it cheaper? Big difference between the 2.

And yeah, I support many of the ideas behind Reaganomics, and no, this current recession isn't because of that type of policy, this current recession is from the opposite of reaganomics.

The information that was leaked may be CORRECT in saying that Intel coerced OEMs to buy a certain amount from them or they would cut them off...


Personally, the OEMs should have gotten together and collectively said... "Fuck you Intel" and went to AMD and IBM with a proposal to get the stuff they needed...