Friday, July 27th 2007
EU Charges Intel with Monopoly Abuse
EU regulators said Friday they have charged Intel Corp. with monopoly abuse for blocking rival computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s access to customers. The European Commission claimed that Intel gave "substantial rebates" to computer makers for buying most of their x86 computer processing units, or CPUs, from Intel; that it made payments to manufacturers to get them to delay or cancel product lines using AMD chips; and that it sold its own chips below cost on average to strategic server customers on bids against AMD products to try to muscle into that business. Intel has a chance to defend itself before the EU's executive arm takes a final decision that could order the company to stop abusive behavior or charge the company with millions of dollars fine.
Source:
washingtonpost.com
45 Comments on EU Charges Intel with Monopoly Abuse
I don't understand what are you guys talking about.
Intel has always been sued one way or other. When you can't do proper business because ur products suck you have to do all under the table dealings to sell. Every where in the universe it is called 'Cheating'!!
If Intel did everything they could to keep PC manufacturers from using the AMD processors, then I think that is very wrong. In fact, I think that is low and dirty. Back when AMD was on top, Dell had to listen to complaints and come up with lame excuses about their lack of AMD systems. Last I heard, HP passed Dell up for the #1 spot. Good for them, because HP/Compaq have always supported both Intel and AMD. Heck, Intel might have had a lot to do with Dell losing that top spot? Maybe Dell should be suing them as well. :) (just kiding, I think all the suing going on is ridiculous.)
Or just search the web ...
Edit, wait a minute, you're saying that Intel paying kickbacks to OEMs is absolutely fine. Are you trying to set up a straw man here? Because your first response to mine was more along the lines of "cooperating between two companies to defeat a third is fine". That's ambiguous. This is collusion between one company and another in different markets (whole systems vs one component) in an effort to inhibit another "one component" company, for one of the aforementioned two in return for cheaper deals for the "whole system" company. You seem to be saying that companies A B and C are in exactly the same market/same plane.
This activity/collusion just wipes out free market darwinism. It's completely against said principle.
The basic problem with collusion can be thought of in fundamental economic terms. In a completely (and strictly enforced) free market, market forces are in a cut throat battle to produce goods at the lowest possible price with the greatest efficiency. This increases the overall wealth of society and the economy. Collusion is an attempt to decrease the amount of wealth that a company needs to create by inhibiting competition in order to increase their profits. Thus collusion is a bad thing, and incompatible with a strictly enforced truly free market.
But you seem to be saying you believe two mutually exclusive things.
A company giving another discounts so long as they don't use a competitors goods is collusion, whether there is an existing contract or not. Collusion is not dependent on contract law.
Intel released an answer to the EU
Seriously tho, I do think AMD have been run into ruin Since Intel came out in force & released the Core 2's ever since its been core 2 this core 2 that. & some if not all motherboard manufacturers will only release a core 2 duo version of a mobo because thats how the market is. nobody wants AMD's anymore its all about the Core 2's. so they have also sufferd in that department also.
Hopefully Intel will back off enough to let AMD have a little elbow room to work & hopefully be able to get back some of the market
I really thought this was obvious. :banghead: These accusations are about rebates, that made intel significantly cheaper than AMD, in which were only available to you when you guaranteed to not use AMD products.
In the end you would get a cheaper intel box, because you didn't pick AMD. If you had AMD stuff, you were ineligible.
Bristish plane "Saunders-Roe SR.177" VS american "Lockheed F-104 Starfighter".
The SR.177 was a combined jet- and rocket-powered interceptor aircraft for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. Was going to be the perfect plane to intercept russian bombers and going to be the choice for NATO forces.
The "Lockheed F-104" was not a good plane for the americans: unstabble, limited by bad weather conditions and short wings with limited space for missiles. So they rejected it and Lockheed was in trouble. And the only solution to make some money was to sale their (bad) planes to foreign countries.
Suddenly West Germany and other european governments changed their opinion and choosed the F-104 as their interceptor. The F-104 won the NATO deal. Experts were surprised.
The planes had to be improved to fit european conditions, but then the plane was even worst. It was very heavy and hard to control... the result: 270 crashed planes, 110 pilots dead, only in the luftwaffe...
The SR.177 would be a fantastic plane and way much better than the F-104. But the "corrupt money" killed the SR.177 project.
For 20 years the mysterious reasons of the F-104 choice were kept in secret. After the "Watergate": in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177
So, this is how some americans see market competition: "it's all about the money and the radical ways to get more".
I don't know if Intel is guilty, but thank god EU is working to prevent cases like this Lockheed scandal. :cool: