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

Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini on EC Ruling

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

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,972 (10.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,759
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Paul Otellini, Intel Corporation president and CEO today issued the following statement regarding the European Commission decision on Intel's business practices:

    "Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."

    "We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not. The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don't perform the market acts accordingly."

    "Intel never sells products below cost. We have however, consistently invested in innovation, in manufacturing and in developing leadership technology. The result is that we can discount our products to compete in a highly competitive marketplace, passing along to consumers everywhere the efficiencies of being the world's leading volume manufacturer of microprocessors."

    "Despite our strongly held views, as we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we're in compliance with their decision. Finally, there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry's best performing processors at lower prices."

    Intel's Position on the AMD Antitrust Case
    Since the 1990s Intel's principal competitor has been on a concerted campaign to get regulators and courts around the world to prevent Intel from competing aggressively in the market. The aggressive marketing campaign by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has included numerous complaints to regulators in multiple jurisdictions which all stem from the same set of allegations and source. It has included a private lawsuit in the U.S. and two in Japan. By all accounts the U.S. lawsuit could become one of largest antitrust cases in the history of U.S. Courts.

    AMD's objectives are clear; it is seeking price protection and wants to become more successful by deterring Intel from aggressive competition. Stripped of hyperbole AMD's complaints around the world accuse Intel of competing too aggressively by offering customers attractive prices and marketing, and technical support to win their business.

    The microprocessor market is fiercely competitive. That competition has resulted in tremendous benefits to consumers worldwide by providing continuous improvement in technology innovation, performance and capability at consistently lower prices. Intel believes in competition and has never shied away from it. As you will see from information contained on this site Intel believes it operates well within the law.

    More information about Intel and "Competition in the Innovation Economy" is available here.

    Source: Intel
     
  2. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,313 (7.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,795
    I call BS on this ruling.

    Um yeah. Thats what you do to ummm.....make money? :roll:
     
  3. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Sure.

    But you don't seem to realise that intel was paying tertiary firms to NOT stock products with AMD CPUs installed.

    I see no other valid reason why AMD's products would be ommited by many OEM's production lines or retailers, as they are better on the value for money side of things, especially during the Pentium 4 Netburst era. The architecture was CLEARLY flawed, bringing shitty performance with high levels of heat and power usage.

    However at this point in time it seemed odd that AMD's offerings became a rarity-intel got desperate. Despite AMD's clear technological dominance, they did NOT dominate the market because of -ahem- factors.
     
  4. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,554 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    857
    Just once i would love to see a CEO stand up and say:

    "You know what, we were wrong. Sorry guys it wont happen again"



    Apparently the case was also backed by US federal investigations - i wouldn't be surprised if the US jumped on the band wagon and did the same.
     
  5. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,972 (10.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,759
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    If that statement costs a billion Euros, that would be a day.
     
  6. DareD

    DareD New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Soon US will do the same as the EU.
    "Despite its strong defence, Intel is facing a wall of regulatory resistance to its business practices around the world, with antitrust infringement decisions against it now in Japan, Korea, and the EU, while the US authorities are investigating Intel as well," - said David Anderson.

    Intel would now have to change its latest advertising slogan from "sponsors of tomorrow" to "the sponsor of the European taxpayer". - Ms Kroes
    That's how money are going where they belong to... :D
     
  7. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,808 (3.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    547
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    I dont call the ruling BS, but a little excessive with the 1.05 billion euros. Intel did this in the height of AMDs heyday with the Athlon 64. As was pointed out by Tkpenalty, they offered discounts to those to not stock AMD chips. Dell was forever without AMD chips I believe in a large part to that. Though they did sell a few AMD computers on HSN and stuff, it wasnt near the volume that they had with intel. Its good for Intel to get its bubble burst every once in a while.

    One thing I will not agree on is AMD saying Intel is being shady with offering of technical support. I dont care who you are a company should offer all the support (Technical or Customer) that they can for their product(s)
     
  8. snakeoil New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    49 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    today is a fine day for intel

    today is a fine day for intel

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 13, 2009
    tkpenalty and ShadowFold say thanks.
  9. shagg

    shagg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    28 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Location:
    Florida
    I concur with the ruling.

    just my 2 cents.
     
    IcrushitI says thanks.
  10. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,049 (3.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,954
    why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.
     
  11. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    what if after the appeal EU fines them with more :laugh:
     
  12. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,275 (2.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    968
    Kroes should be FIRED for that statement. It clearly represents a conflict of interest; an opportunity to stuff gready pockets with a ruling that should be economically determined to redress the LOSS TO AMD, and not a win to EU taxpayers.

    IF there are ANY payments other than to AMD, there should be a REBATE to all purchasers of Intel systems for being ripped off.

    There is NO DEFENSIBLE story as to why EU taxpayers (read: quasi-gvt organisations and their insane bugets of over salaries and over expenses for bureaucrats) should be on "the take" for this.

    I repeat, Kroes should be fired for that statement, irrespective of the ruling. It is just plain incompetent to do that. Intel should countersue and have Kroes struck-off the appeal process.
     
    1c3d0g and alexp999 say thanks.
  13. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    I think amd are just QQ coz intel are doing better.Dont they realize its dog eat dog and no prisoners in buisness.Maybe if they make cpu's people actually want to buy then they might sell more.
     
  14. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    14,121 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,939
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Dell didn't offer AMD chips for two decades (1985-2006). Dell only started to offer AMD processors in Dimension machines after they aquired Alienware which was already offering AMD chips. As I said in the other thread, offering two different kinds of processors means two different platforms and that adds a lot of extra cost in purchasing, manufacturing, and support. The reason why they did it was because this was just after Core 2 Duo launch and AMD processors were dirt cheap offseting to the subsequent costs.

    There's no indiciation, anywhere, that Intel was bribing (or whatever legal term you want to stick in there) Dell to only sell Intel processors. The incentive is cost cutting like we see with auto dealers usually sticking to only one brand of cars (only have to stock one set of parts for replacement).
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  15. wiak

    wiak

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,749 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Norway
    last time i checked AMD owned Intel with their Athlon 64 chips, but why did AMD only get upto 20% of the market when they had alot better CPUs in 2003?

    99% of the time you go into a retailer you only see intel based PCs just a frew years ago
     
  16. allen337

    allen337

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    959 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Location:
    Danville IL
    I wish Intel would fold up and go away for a couple of years and see how AMD starts charging $2000 for processors and video cards you got to buy. Without aggressive competition we all lose. I didnt see where Intel held a gun to noones head to get them to buy their product. Newegg should be next on the list and while were at it XFX-EVGA and Sapphire should be sued. AMD are a bunch of crybabies, I want my mommie I cant compete. ALLEN
     
  17. wiak

    wiak

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,749 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Norway
    well its not THAT, but it is that intel paid OEMs to exclude AMD chips
    its like saying that Coca-Cola pays a store not to sell Pepsi

    AMD IGPs are superior to any intel IGP
    Phenom II is just as fast as Core 2 Quad 9000
    Phenom I was just as fast as Core 2 Quad Q6000
     
  18. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    I don't think you understand the situation at all, or have ever read the allegations in any of the numerous articles and news stories.

    Personally, I'm still just shocked that there are people who worship the "free market" and yet somehow justify underhanded kickbacks and secret "rebates" in order to stifle competition.

    Perhaps these are the same people who think the Mafia are capitalists... :laugh:
     
  19. allen337

    allen337

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    959 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Location:
    Danville IL

    You think that Pepsi is only at Pizza hut and Lees fried chicken because coca cola cant compete with free we need to sue pepsi also
     
  20. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    pesi will sue coca and viceversa for using "cola":laugh:
     
  21. iStink

    iStink New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    648 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Are you guys all KIDDING ME!?

    Intel has been "aggressively competitive" well boo fucking hoo for AMD. I'm sick of these companies that lose, then point blame at any place other than back at themselves.

    Just like it pissed me off when these car companies required a bale-out for bad business. They didn't listen to what the consumer wanted, the continued to manufacture junk that nobody would buy, and in the end, even though nobody bought their crap, they were FORCED to buy their crap anyways in a sense with taxes.

    So lets put things into the simplest perspective here. Little Johnny and Susie both have lemonade stands. Johnny tells passers by that he'll give 30% more lemonade for the same price as Susie, it tastes better, and he also offers an additional discount if the customer buys lemonade for his whole family from him, and not from Susie. Then Susie cries to mommy that Johnny isn't being fair and Mommy makes Johnny hand over a lot of his money he earned fair and square. Then Mommy goes out and buys a gigolo and some coke with the money she took from Johnny.

    Take it how you want it, but the above example is the same thing going on here. AMD is little whiny Susie Creamcheese.
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  22. snakeoil New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    49 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    yes the same thing did hitler.
     
  23. iStink

    iStink New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    648 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    49
    same thing did hitler? Jeez man, ever heard of Godwin's law?

    We're not talking about the desecration and extermination of an entire group of people here dude so try not to elevate intel's business practice to such horrendous extremes.

    Back when 939 dominated P4, did Intel complain? Nope. They stepped up.

    It's a shame that the world is turning out the way it is. If you're a large enough business, and you do bad, you can point blame at the competition for doing too well and you'll be compensated.
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  24. DonInKansas

    DonInKansas

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,098 (1.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,269
    Location:
    Kansas
    I would too if I had to pay out all that cash.:laugh:
     
  25. vontrapp New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I guess if you think 1 competitor is too many yes then it's "highly competitive" :rolleyes:
     

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

Share This Page