Monday, October 26th 2009
Now US Inclines to Fine Intel for Antitrust Malpractice
Trailing the European Union's record 1.45 Billion Dollar penalty against silicon giant Intel for antitrust malpractice in Europe, American antitrust regulators are on the verge of filing their own set of charges against the company, emanating out of similar findings of investigations carried out by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Sources tell BusinessDay that three out of four commissioners on the FTC were in favor of filing a complaint against Intel. FTC's own inquiry opened in June, last year. It could be a matter of weeks, or even months before a vote formalizing FTC's stand on the issue happens.
"Our business practices are lawful and [work] to the benefit of consumers," said Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy, in response to the BusinessDay report. "We certainly have been working closely with the FTC as they conduct their investigation. We would hope that the speculation is incorrect ," he added. The US antitrust investigation follows similar investigations that have concluded against the favor of Intel, by the European Union, South Korea, and Japan. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel violated the country's anti-monopoly act. In June last year, South Korea fined Intel about $26m, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying AMD microprocessors. EU's investigations yielded similar findings, where the company was fined 1.06 Billion EUR for paying computer makers to postpone or cancel products that use microprocessors made by smaller competitor AMD.
Source:
BusinessDay
"Our business practices are lawful and [work] to the benefit of consumers," said Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy, in response to the BusinessDay report. "We certainly have been working closely with the FTC as they conduct their investigation. We would hope that the speculation is incorrect ," he added. The US antitrust investigation follows similar investigations that have concluded against the favor of Intel, by the European Union, South Korea, and Japan. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel violated the country's anti-monopoly act. In June last year, South Korea fined Intel about $26m, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying AMD microprocessors. EU's investigations yielded similar findings, where the company was fined 1.06 Billion EUR for paying computer makers to postpone or cancel products that use microprocessors made by smaller competitor AMD.
129 Comments on Now US Inclines to Fine Intel for Antitrust Malpractice
As a matter of fact I even predicted the U.S. would follow suit. ;)
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.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.
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.
Still don't see how offering rebates should be illegal, nor will I ever agree with that sentiment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Just drop it. We disagree completely, and it's going to stay that way until new facts are introduced.
My opinion is that they did nothing wrong, and even if they did break the law, the law is flawed and needs changed. Plain and simple.
You opinion is that they are guilty of wrong doing, and that the law is just. Plain and simple.
Does that about sum it up?