Thursday, July 23rd 2009

Intel Appeals Against EU Antitrust Verdict

Earlier this year in May, the European Commission for anti-competitive practices found Intel guilty of various antitrust practices. The company was then slapped with a massive 1.06 billion Euro (US $1.45 billion) fine, the single largest antitrust fine it has ever meted out to a company. On Wednesday, Intel explored its legal option of appealing against the fine with Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, Europe's second highest judicial body. The company argues that the EC regulator failed to consider the evidence that supported Intel's contention during the trial.

In a telephone interview with ComputerWorld, Robert Manetta, an Intel spokesperson said "We believe the Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence." Meanwhile, apart from the fine Intel is expected to pay within three months of the verdict, the ruling also puts a stop to Intel's rebates to PC manufacturers and retailers on condition of near or total exclusivity, among several other deemed malpractices. Authorities in South Korea and Japan found similar irregularities in Intel's marketing methods, while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General's office are investigating the company for abuse of its monopoly position.Source: ComputerWorld
Add your own comment

307 Comments on Intel Appeals Against EU Antitrust Verdict

#1
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
Socialism has nothing to do with this. Japan and S. Korea have similar cases against Intel, another one is brewing up in New York, and the last thing you'd attribute with them is socialism.

It's as legit an antitrust trust case as the 100s that may have been contested in American courts, only maintaining a lower profile, involving smaller companies.
Apparently you have never been to New York.

Anyway nothing Intel did had to do with anti-trust laws of the U.S. The EU rewrites the rules as they go to suit their crooked ass needs. Intel is now an "easy" target because the EU found them "guilty" of whatever made up scenario they conjured up. So yeah since everyone is now broke you are going to see a LOT of lawsuits towards the guy with the deepest pockets. All in the name of "justice". After all we need to make sure everyone is "equal" :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
Apparently you have never been to New York.

Anyway nothing Intel did had to do with anti-trust laws of the U.S. The EU rewrites the rules as they go to suit their crooked ass needs. Intel is now an "easy" target because the EU found them "guilty" of whatever made up scenario they conjured up. So yeah since everyone is now broke you are going to see a LOT of lawsuits towards the guy with the deepest pockets. All in the name of "justice". After all we need to make sure everyone is "equal" :laugh:
Apparently you don't seem to know that New York uses the same "anti-trust laws of the U.S", and the same laws are governing yet another antitrust lawsuit in the making. It's pretty simple, Intel stifled competition in EU, got penalised. The money EU makes isn't going to AMD, so it's not socialism, it's like any other penal code in the world.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
Apparently you don't seem to know that New York uses the same "anti-trust laws of the U.S", and the same laws are governing yet another antitrust lawsuit in the making. It's pretty simple, Intel stifled competition in EU, got penalised. The money EU makes isn't going to AMD, so it's not socialism, it's like any other penal code in the world.
Remember when I talked about different cultures and such in that other thread? This is exactly what I was talking about. NY and California play by their own set of rules. So many cases have come out of those states having to do with civil liberties and such it would blow your mind. Seems like every damn case ends up in the Supreme court too. You know what happens then? The Supreme court tells them to bug off because NY and California interpretation of the law is all screwed up.

They are the most socialistic minded states in the union. So I'm not surprised NY is suing Intel for having to much money. I'm more surprised California isn't involved.
Posted on Reply
#4
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
So I'm not surprised NY is suing Intel for having to much money. I'm more surprised California isn't involved.
Uh they haven't sued anyone yet. The one investigating it is USFTC, which is a federal agency.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
Uh they haven't sued anyone yet. The one investigating it is USFTC, which is a federal agency.
You said NY.

Anyway the USFTC has to investigate now. I won't go into that. That will completely derail this thread. ;)
Posted on Reply
#6
hat
Enthusiast
Meh... I guess company A is anti-competative twoards company B because A makes better stuff than B.
Posted on Reply
#7
TheMailMan78
Big Member
hat said:
Meh... I guess company A is anti-competative twoards company B because A makes better stuff than B.
No because company A sells more than company B so they must be doing something unfair.
Posted on Reply
#8
Nick89
erocker said:
Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to greedy, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.
I have to agree erocker, I think Microsoft should do the same thing.
Posted on Reply
#9
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
You said NY.

Anyway the USFTC has to investigate now. I won't go into that. That will completely derail this thread. ;)
It involves the NY Attorney General's office, so if investigations reveal something funny, it will be taken up in NY. The investigating agency, however, is federal so they are not going to build a NY/CA-centric interpretation of your laws. Again, at the end of the day, it's going to be under the American law that Intel gets penalised, if it's found guilty. For an investigation of this kind to even proceed in US, only goes on to show that the case has nothing to do with "socialism" and only to do with pure law enforcement.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
It involves the NY Attorney General's office, so if investigations reveal something funny, it will be taken up in NY. The investigating agency, however, is federal so they are not going to build a NY/CA-centric interpretation of your laws. Again, at the end of the day, it's going to be under the American law that Intel gets penalised, if it's found guilty. For an investigation of this kind to even proceed in US, only goes on to show that the case has nothing to do with "socialism" and only to do with pure law enforcement.
It will be NY Attorney General's office interpretation of the law that will go to the USFTC. With the anti-business mentality that the current administration has it won't surprise me if they drum up some charges. How much do you want to bet this ends up in the Supreme court?
Posted on Reply
#11
Nick89
AltecV1 said:
i hate when fanboys start a war:shadedshu European Union is only doing its job to protect consumers and other companies from monopolic companies like intel!!:mad:
EU Just needs money so they are fining intel. Where do you think that 1.45 bilion is going to go?

said by an AMD fanboi lol.
Posted on Reply
#12
a_ump
idk all the fact or "leaked facts", but IIRC, wasn't EU's fine against when intel was still using P4 and PD, which at that time AMD had superior CPU's so the statements of "intel didn't keep AMD from making better processors" and the such are pointless. I mean, why would P4's outsell AMD systems so greatly back then? marketing is one thing, but it's not like Dell and HP look at marketing. They knew AMD was there and had better performance yet....i can't recal seeing a single AMD system in Dell's ads in magazines, tv, etc. 3 convictions in 3 different countries/unions yea i think intel was guilty. Personally i agree with what a few have said, this appeal is pointless and the only reason i could see intel doing this is because.....?they want to look innocent to the fullest? idk i mean if us TPU members can pretty well agree its pointless what's intels purpose in filing an appeal?

on another note, does anyone know why AMD's marketing is non-existant? Like said, publically, intel is known just bout everywhere and is everywhere. AMD however is the opposite. I don't see anythign wrong with AMD taking over ATI, i mean they're doing fine now and who knows what K11 will do? Nehalem really isn't that much of an increase of core2 architecture and AMD finally caught up with that. maybe their next architecture will match nehalem, if they had enough money to come up with Phenom II's architecture, surely the revenue which has been superior this past year and still growing can pay for more work on a greater CPU architecture. I see now reason now for ATI to fail as they're on par with Nvidia imo(not necessarily performance wise but how well off they are, i believe they're equal).
Posted on Reply
#13
erocker
As far as AMD marketing goes, I really don't think they have ever had the budget. Large television campaigns cost a ton of money. Currently Intel has a market cap of 108.8 Billion and AMD is 2.4 Billion. There would need to be 45 AMD's to reach Intel.
Posted on Reply
#14
a_ump
dammmm, i didn't thk intel was that much larger than AMD, i mean i knew there was good difference but i was thking like 8:1, not 50:1. still a few ads in even magazines couldn't cost that much could it?
Posted on Reply
#15
TheMailMan78
Big Member
a_ump said:
idk all the fact or "leaked facts", but IIRC, wasn't EU's fine against when intel was still using P4 and PD, which at that time AMD had superior CPU's so the statements of "intel didn't keep AMD from making better processors" and the such are pointless. I mean, why would P4's outsell AMD systems so greatly back then? marketing is one thing, but it's not like Dell and HP look at marketing. They knew AMD was there and had better performance yet....i can't recal seeing a single AMD system in Dell's ads in magazines, tv, etc. 3 convictions in 3 different countries/unions yea i think intel was guilty.
It isnt just about the quality of the product. Its about the demand and meeting it. The orders that HP and Dell had at that time were far greater than AMD could provide for. Having a late shipment can cost you more than you took for your margin of profit. One day late can cost you all profit from that shipment. Two days cost you what it took to make the product. Three days you owe THEM money. So on and so on.

Also never EVER underestimate the power of marketing. What do you think presidential campaigns are won with?
Posted on Reply
#16
a_ump
bullshit of course :D
Posted on Reply
#17
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
It will be NY Attorney General's office interpretation of the law that will go to the USFTC. With the anti-business mentality that the current administration has it won't surprise me if they drum up some charges. How much do you want to bet this ends up in the Supreme court?
Even if it doesn't, even if Intel gets acquitted, it becomes evident that your law doesn't permit what Intel has been found guilty of doing in EU, Japan, and Korea, either.
Posted on Reply
#18
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
erocker said:
As far as AMD marketing goes, I really don't think they have ever had the budget. Large television campaigns cost a ton of money. Currently Intel has a market cap of 108.8 Billion and AMD is 2.4 Billion. There would need to be 45 AMD's to reach Intel.
According to Fortune 500 2009 list...
Intel is at 61: 37.586 billion in revenue.
AMD is at 481: 5.881 billion in revenue.

Intel made 6.39 times more than AMD in 2008.

Market capitalization represents the public's opinion of a businesses' net worth. Said differently...

Intel makes 6.39 times as much as AMD. Investors are 45.33 times more confident in Intel than AMD.


Advertising is an investment AMD refuses to make. Every dollar spent in advertising should more than come back in improved sales. AMD has their head stuck in this concept of "the product sells itself." Simply put, that concept has never created a market segment leader.
Posted on Reply
#19
[I.R.A]_FBi
$ReaPeR$ said:
i agree but nevertheless they need to be checked by us
By us the ignorant?
Posted on Reply
#20
Wile E
Power User
Well, all I can say is, I hope the ruling gets overturned. It should not be illegal to offer discounts for exclusivity.

That said, I know I'm just hoping against hope.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
Even if it doesn't, even if Intel gets acquitted, it becomes evident that your law doesn't permit what Intel has been found guilty of doing in EU, Japan, and Korea, either.
If they are acquitted that means they are Innocent. In the U.S. you are Innocent until proven guilty.

Think of the world market as a pack of starving sharks swimming. Intel is a pretty big shark and it ain't starving. However another big starving shark E.U. just bit it. Now there's blood in the water. What do you think all the other sharks are going to do? Its a feeding frenzy on Intel's ass.......ets. Now what I'm saying is Intel didn't deserve to be bit. However its to late now. There's blood in the water and everyone wants a bite whether the deserve it or not.
Posted on Reply
#22
tkpenalty
Easy Rhino said:
thanks. people can argue that what intel did was wrong until they are blue in the face but it doesnt change the fact that amd runs a disorganized business, lacks a good marketing campaign and makes inferior chips (purposely at a lower price not saying it is a bad thing). even if intel decided against being awesome and offering rebates (which i do not think is wrong) amd would still be in a bad position.
When rebates are offered to a secondary producer and not the consumer instead then this is not really a rebate, but a bribe. These exclusivity deals basically prevent most of what AMD produces from ever reaching the consumer, and it means that they have less of a consumer base accessible. That isnt fair because that means that where the competition happens, AMD does not get much exposure versus intel, and thanks to humans being animals that flock, we generally use whats popular.
Posted on Reply
#23
Wile E
Power User
tkpenalty said:
When rebates are offered to a secondary producer and not the consumer instead then this is not really a rebate, but a bribe.
Bullshit. Who said a company has to pass rebates on to the consumers? It's their choice to do so.
Posted on Reply
#24
tkpenalty
Wile E said:
Bullshit. Who said a company has to pass rebates on to the consumers? It's their choice to do so.
Read above post. A secondary producer is a producer such as AMD, while the tertiary companies are the companies such as ACER. AMD CANNOT make profits at all if they have no market to sell their products because intel, bribed them not to sell anything AMD, and the market exists at the tertiary companies. That is entirely unfair, because of LESS MARKET EXPOSURE. In some nations AMD had no exposure at all.

Please do not see rebates as a rebate that you get back from newegg, but see them as a transfer of funds; a sum of money.
Posted on Reply
#25
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
Nick89 said:
EU Just needs money so they are fining intel. Where do you think that 1.45 bilion is going to go?

said by an AMD fanboi lol.
I would be curious as to where that 1.45 billion will go. Anyone know?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment