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. aGeoM New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    217 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Location:
    Algarve/Portugal
    ya, sure... on an Monopoly market, yes... I guest they can...

    Man open your eyes, if you don't see it it's because you don't want to see.
  2. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,492 (13.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,904
    So what bad business practice did Intel do to deserve a fine? Specifically.
  3. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,853 (8.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,396
    Welcome to Capitalism.

    They are guilty of being an "Evil" American company making money off the poor innocent EU citizens. In other words.......absolutely nothing.
  4. aGeoM New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    217 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Location:
    Algarve/Portugal
    Who said that?... bad business practice , i didn't...

    Anyway, specifically speaking you should ask to all court judge's all over the globe, the reason and facts, why they decided what they decided.

    I'm not an judge or lawyer, to be specific.
  5. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    And even capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the American automobile industry. Falling left right and center.
  6. aGeoM New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    217 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Location:
    Algarve/Portugal
    Capitalism should be only possible in Democracy, freedom of choice, free market, that kind of stuff, Monopoply is more a kind of proper an aceptable business practice on an Totalitary regime, don't you think so?



    AMD is an American company and... really I don't mind to spend every spare euros I have in AMD products. :banghead:

    You should be older than what looks like from you post.
  7. ghost101

    ghost101 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    Location:
    London
    I knew my game theory courses could be used in real life situations one day. :laugh:

    Heres the actual press release by the commission.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

    I want those complaining to explain how this is competition. A lovely example of the ridiculous distortions created by Intel's practices raised in the link above.

    The conditions were such that firms werent allowed to even take free processors.
    mdm-adph, gumpty and aGeoM say thanks.
  8. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    That's part of capitalism. It is one of the defining features of capitalism. The companies that make bad business decisions go under. I wouldn't have it any other way. Our govt is a bunch of asshats for bailing them out.
  9. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,853 (8.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,396
    Thats capitalism at its finest. Bailing them out isn't.

    Don't make this personal. You'll lose.
  10. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Did you read everything in the ruling by chance? Did they list any proof of this happening?
  11. ghost101

    ghost101 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    Location:
    London
    Well this isnt a legally binding ruling. Intel will appeal and it will go to the courts. I'm guessing the commission knew that Intel would appeal and so there will be evidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_First_Instance
  12. aGeoM New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    217 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Location:
    Algarve/Portugal
    yah sure, already lose my time, sorry. Bye.

    EDIT: my quote:
    your quote:
    Again, sorry I didn't wanted to sound personal, just to make you read what you wrote and thought about it. That's all. I'm editing because I thought twice in what I wrote, I thought you deserved a better apologize.;)
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  13. ghost101

    ghost101 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    Location:
    London
    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

    Simple Q&A here which covers most of people's questions be that on this forum or anywhere on the web atm.

    aGeoM says thanks.
  14. snakeoil New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    49 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    intel horrors surface

    intel horrors surface:

    The EU antitrust commission reveals terrible details surrounding intel business practices during the last years.

    at that time AMD was so desperate finding all the manufacturers doors closed that had to resort to offer its processors for free but...

    ''For example, rival chip manufacturer AMD offered one million free CPUs to one particular computer manufacturer. If the computer manufacturer had accepted all of these, it would have lost Intel's rebate on its many millions of remaining CPU purchases, and would have been worse off overall simply for having accepted this highly competitive offer. In the end, the computer manufacturer took only 160,000 CPUs for free.''

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...amp;aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
    tkpenalty says thanks.
  15. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    I reiterate, being competetive is one thing, but bribery is a totally different story. Competetiveness of a firm means that they put loads of money into R&D and try to produce the better product with more desireable aspects. Competetiveness does not mean anything to do with exclusive business deals, by preventing your competitor from selling their products, and thus its not the fact that the consumer is not satisfied with AMD's products, but its the fact that Intel has prevented AMD from selling any in the first place.

    For those who STILL oppose this ruling, no offense, but PLEASE realise that BRIBERY IS AN ILLEGAL MARKET PRACTISE.


    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer A from December 2002 to December 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs
    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer B from November 2002 to May 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 95% of its CPU needs for its business desktop computers from Intel (the remaining 5% that computer manufacturer B could purchase from rival chip maker AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below)
    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer C from October 2002 to November 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 80% of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook computers from Intel
    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer D in 2007 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook computers exclusively from Intel.


    If you dont understand, rebates for SECONDARY INDUSTRIES to NOT use your competitor's products is very uncompetetive. The Secondary Industry does NOT serve the consumer (i.e. Intel, AMD, any graphics card companies, basically component manufacturers). Competition is defined as a consumer response to the final product, avaliable from Tertiary firms, such as the OEM's retail branches. This applies to everything. Basically in order for AMD and Intel just to sell products, they need the use of Retailers. Anti-competetive behavior is defined as not allowing/limiting consumer response of your competitor's product. By using rebates, it is equivalent to a bribe, as the OEM gets funds returned; its "we pay you $XXXXXXX if you dont use AMD" reworded to "if you dont use AMD we will offer $XXX rebates" In any case they are still considered as bribes. Learn to accept someone else's opinion for once. It will improve you.

    Have a think. Thanks to Intel, the poor performance of netbust architecture CPUs has caused some pretty bad damage to the market. You may go "as if", but its pretty clear. Take Windows vista for example. If AMD had a 50/50 market share with intel without these henious practises, the majority of users would be better off. I mean, users of slightly older K8 CPUs didn't have to bear the heartache that the majority, the consumer had, and if the majority used it, Vista wouldn't have been shunned so much. AMD would have had more money for R&D, and so would Intel, as Vista would have sold better thus a demand for more computers, and software, leading onto much more demand from the CPU market.

    Instead Intel decided to take the easy and sleasy way out, and bribed manufacturers to kill off any competition.
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
    aGeoM says thanks.
  16. Yukikaze

    Yukikaze

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,309 (1.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    481
    In other words, if they accepted the 1,000,000 CPUs for free, they would have lost Intel rebates worth more than that money. In other words, the Intel offer was still better money wise. I bet that if AMD offered 10,000,000 free CPUs said OEM wouldn't have mulled over it as long, or made the same decision as it did.

    In short, they didn't make a better offer, end of story.

    The whole issue at hand, as I see it, is the fact that the EU gets to decide when a company is big enough to get nailed down, but the law itself is not clear. If the law stated: "Once above X % of the market share for Y months according to EU data, you're no longer allowed to do A,B,C and/or D", this is one thing. However, nailing a company for practices completely okay for smaller companies (Imagine the uproar if Intel would be giving out 1,000,000 free CPUs - Effectively "selling" them under-cost, or the lack of any care over the exclusive deals for selling Coke or Pepsi) is penalizing a company for success - This is discrimination, not law.

    Either fix the law (And not retroactively, of course), or stop the BS. Finally, if AMD is the one so harmed by this, they are the ones that should be reimbursed by the decision, with a much smaller amount of the fine going into the EU coffers.
  17. ghost101

    ghost101 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    165
    Location:
    London
    How does it make sense not to take free CPUs? There should be absolutely no cost to the OEM. Remember that giving away CPUs is basically paying an OEM to use your CPU. Of course if AMD offered monetary value greater than Intel's discount they would accept. but can't you see that it is unsustainable for AMD to give away CPUs? Should they begin to just give away CPUs to everyone? How long will such a business last? That is why this is uncompetitive if this happens. No one can startup a business in this environment. Intel increase their monopoly power and you end up with welfare losses.

    Yes selling them undercost is illegal. But it was a reaction by AMD to ridiculous behaviour by Intel. AMD had produced CPUs which they couldn't sell because of Intel's practices. Any firm will sell them at whatever price they can rather than end up with rapidly depreciating stock. In this case, they couldn't even give them away.

    As for size of a company. It is very clear the size of Intel allows it to practice such uncompetitive behaviour. Whenever a firm is large enough to get away with such behaviour in open markets, they then should be monitored.

    If AMD are harmed, it is upto them to file a suit. The commission is paid for by taxpayers money and represents the consumer. It also attempts to correct the market for optimality so that in the future, consumers do not suffer.

    The other role of the fine is to act as a deterrent. To tell other companies and Intel, that financially it isn't worthwhile using uncompetitive practices.

    The funny thing is, even with perfect hindsight and this 1bn EUR fine, Intel would do the exact same thing. Look at where AMD are now compared to where they could have been. The extra profits Intel will recieve in the decades to come due to their practices will net them much more than the 1bn EUR fine.
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  18. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Why did i never state that. Gay. stupid me:shadedshu
  19. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,632 (3.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,363
    imagine what would happen if intel pulled all their products from the eu market. companies would go broke left and right, the eu would beg intel to come back after half a year
  20. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Intel wouldn't. It would lose too much of a market. If it did, AMD would be raking it in and that is something that Intel simply wont allow.
  21. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,632 (3.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,363
    intel makes a lot more than just cpus, i'm not even sure if amd has the capacity to satisfy intel's EU demand. does anyone use amd cpus in servers?
  22. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    I thought they can use opterons? or something. Besides if you have a server why upgrade it. And if they did need to then AMD would fill the gap with a rebranded Server athlon chip or something.

    Intel wont leave the EU market. Why would it? It makes no business sense. It'll lose too much money and other countries wont be happy paying the difference so Intels shareholders remain happy. If and IF it does, it'll be the shareholders demanding that Intel expand their operations back into the EU.
  23. FordGT90Concept

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

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,316 (6.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,342
    Location:
    IA, USA
    It crossed my mind, but no. I have an one-way Opteron in a desktop, and Xeons in my two-way server.

    The Kentsfield-based Xeons are just much higher performance than the 65nm Opterons they were offering at the time.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  24. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,632 (3.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,363
    yes, you are correct. i wasn't saying that they are going to, was just thinking about possible consequences if they did in a hypothetical scenario
  25. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Well that hypothetical scenario is AMDs wet dream.

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

Share This Page