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
a_ump
i work at Burger King so yep the whopper pawns the Big Mac :D, i mean we actually put on onion rings not shredded onions, everyone likes more crunch in a burger :laugh:

Frederik S said:
This is a borderline funny thread. Keep it up!
I do not see the problem here rebates like that happen all the time. Whether you are buying grain, salt, or CPUs. The more business you move to one source the better prices you get. Only thing Intel is guilty of is being less than good at covering it up.
eh the only problem is that intel didn't just say hey buy more of our CPU's and we'll cut what your actually paying per CPU by blah% amount. They said "buy only or mostly from us and not AMD, then you get the rebate, don't abide by that and the price you pay for our product will skyrocket." I see where Intel went wrong on this, but then i think aren't the companies just as much at fault as intel for accepting these proposals? but if what some people posted that AMD would not be able to keep up with the demand if the companies had denied intel's proposal. so Intel somewhat blackmailed the companies knowing only they could keep up with the demand 100% so the companies couldn't have said no. But idk for fact and haven't seen any factual info to back up the statement "AMD wouldn't have been able to keep up with demand", if true intel is foresure the only wrong do-er, but if that statement isn't true then i feel the companies are just as much at wrong as intel.

the fine? :roll: what a joke, and wasn't like 60% of the fine supposed to go to AMD? that's what i thought i'd heard in the previous thread about this trial. I also think the fine should have been not just 1billion but more like 1billion every year for 3-5 years, just as many years as intel broke the EU's law.
Posted on Reply
#2
Meecrob
TheMailMan78 said:
I agree. If it wasn't for Intel we would all be living in cloud castles and have rainbow slides to our unicorn stables. Damn those murderous bastards.
no, but if they didnt use dirty business practices to stay ahead the market would be in better shape, sorry but im not one of you people who belive that business should be allowed to do anything and everything it wants to make a profit and stay ahead, guess that means im not a true capitalist.

ps, i hate the carebears.....
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Meecrob said:
no, but if they didnt use dirty business practices to stay ahead the market would be in better shape, sorry but im not one of you people who belive that business should be allowed to do anything and everything it wants to make a profit and stay ahead, guess that means im not a true capitalist.

ps, i hate the carebears.....
No it just means your naive about how companies make money. Also the EU and how THEY make money.
Posted on Reply
#4
Meecrob
hey, if we follow people like you's ideals companies should be able to hire assassins to go around killing the competition and anybody who could possibly cause them to loose/not make as much money.

sounds like fun, give me that job, walk around clubing people like they are baby seals....sounds acceptable since it would be for the all mighty goal of true and total capitalism!!!

P.S. I am quite well versed in how companies make money, the fact is not all of them threaten and bully their way to the top, some just provide the better product at the better price and let the market decide, others like apple with the ipod do an AMAZING job marketing their goods(the ipods mediocre at best quality wise, but its got killer marketing and name recognition behind it)
Posted on Reply
#5
a_ump
Meecrob said:
apple with the ipod do an AMAZING job marketing their goods(the ipods mediocre at best quality wise, but its got killer marketing and name recognition behind it)
very very true, if apple can go around marketing like they do the ipod and be this successful with it then surely intel could have done the same by just marketing and still being ahead esp with AMD's lack of advertisement. AMD had better processors until core2 time(Q2 2006 i thk?). 2002-Q1 2006 amd should have lead the market but we now understand why, because intel blocked AMD out. I myself didn't have a clue amd was better than intel for that many years simply because i'd only seen intel CPU's, i mean shit like said previously the general public know of intel but not AMD. However i think AMD is definitely making a comback from their previous financial position the past 2-3 years with ATI doing very well as well as Phenom II showing great performance/dollar which i hope continues with their next architecture release.
Posted on Reply
#6
El Fiendo
Yes, offering rebates and knocking out knee caps are one in the same. That's what he was advocating.

Look, why aren't people getting huffy with the computer retailers? Intel didn't force them to choose to exclusively carry Intel. They gave them rebates. Price incentives. If you only put our processors in your computer, the entire shipment will cost less. Maybe its shady, but then again the businesses themselves seemed to go with it.

So why aren't the store owners involved getting fined? They stifled the competition just as much by accepting to pay less. They stood to gain just as much. If it costs them less and they don't pass on the savings, they're pocketing your money that you still agreed to pay for the item. But Intel is the only one getting fined?

Why don't they fine Coca Cola and Pepsi? Everywhere in Canada (maybe not the States, dunno) has basically one of the two brands per restaurant. The restaurant agreed to only sell Coke or Pepsi products, but not both. The competition is being stifled, why isn't this an issue?
Posted on Reply
#7
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Meecrob said:
hey, if we follow people like you's ideals companies should be able to hire assassins to go around killing the competition and anybody who could possibly cause them to loose/not make as much money.

sounds like fun, give me that job, walk around clubing people like they are baby seals....sounds acceptable since it would be for the all mighty goal of true and total capitalism!!!

P.S. I am quite well versed in how companies make money, the fact is not all of them threaten and bully their way to the top, some just provide the better product at the better price and let the market decide, others like apple with the ipod do an AMAZING job marketing their goods(the ipods mediocre at best quality wise, but its got killer marketing and name recognition behind it)
Another drama queen I see.

If Apple got to where they are via only marketing why couldn't Intel? At the time Intel was accused of doing anti-competitive practices "Pentium" was a house hold name. Even today few people have any idea who AMD is and what they offer. I think you managed to prove my point while you made your argument. ;)

Why would Dell or HP push an "unproven" product when Intel already did all the marketing? Not only could AMD not meet the demand at the time but Intels foot hold on the industry was in the mind of the people. Intel may not have had the product but by far they had the brains.

Anyway all this is besides the point. If this was about justice the money would go to AMD. But its not. Its going to buy more yachts in the EU.
Posted on Reply
#8
Sugarush
El Fiendo said:
Intel didn't force them to choose to exclusively carry Intel.
Ahmm, that exactly what Intel did, please read the official accusations.

Arguing that the retailers are equally responsible, because they'd accepted this practice, is like saying it's your fault if somebody pushes you off the road and you don't try to crash your car into them (and total it) to stay on it.

And please everybody refrain from arguments like: "It's OK to to do this kind of stuff, this is free market etc. and yay capitalism is great" - grow up!

Forcing retailers to buy your product only is not "free", the free market is not wild west free, but is supposed to have fair rules, otherwise it is not efficient but becomes abusive and the consumers suffer.
Posted on Reply
#9
Meecrob
hp infact has had amd systems as far back as the k5, so did other large OEM's but those disappeared due to intel threats of higher prices or to totally cut off supplies due to a "shortage" that would magically happen if said companies either used non-intel or pushed non-intel systems to hard.

they have been convicted of this in japan and other non-EU counties, its not just the EU picking on people in this case(yes they do-do that but i agree with at least part of their complaints and this is one)

when you threaten in order to get your way, you are being a bully and also IMHO quite un-ethical.

if they simply said they would give a bigger discount if you refrained from using the competitors product that wouldn't be a big deal to me, but thats NOT WHAT INTEL DID, and intel KNEW this could happen, they made enough that if they do pay the fine, its a drop in the bucket compared to what they made by doing this shit for many many years.

intel knew this could/probably would happen, but also knew it wouldn't even touch the money they made by doing it so they win either way.
Posted on Reply
#10
a_ump
many have mentioned that AMD didn't have the resources to supply every manufacturer with the demand that would've taken place if companies had denied intel>intel raised prices>companies buy much less intel CPU's>AMD gets large demand>AMD can't cope>companies have to purchase and go along with intel's "proposals". that is my understanding. could be wrong :p
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
tkpenalty said:
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.
No, Intel did not bribe them as far as I am concerned. They offered them discounts. The lack of market exporsure for AMD is AMD's marketing dept's problem.

Meecrob said:
hp infact has had amd systems as far back as the k5, so did other large OEM's but those disappeared due to intel threats of higher prices or to totally cut off supplies due to a "shortage" that would magically happen if said companies either used non-intel or pushed non-intel systems to hard.

they have been convicted of this in japan and other non-EU counties, its not just the EU picking on people in this case(yes they do-do that but i agree with at least part of their complaints and this is one)

when you threaten in order to get your way, you are being a bully and also IMHO quite un-ethical.

if they simply said they would give a bigger discount if you refrained from using the competitors product that wouldn't be a big deal to me, but thats NOT WHAT INTEL DID, and intel KNEW this could happen, they made enough that if they do pay the fine, its a drop in the bucket compared to what they made by doing this shit for many many years.

intel knew this could/probably would happen, but also knew it wouldn't even touch the money they made by doing it so they win either way.
Intel never threatened the supply, only the price.

Either way, I still think the fine is bureaucratic BS. It's nothing more than a way for govts to make money on a successful business. Same with the Japan and S. Korea cases. I still hope Intel wins the appeal.
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Wile E said:
No, Intel did not bribe them as far as I am concerned. They offered them discounts. The lack of market exporsure for AMD is AMD's marketing dept's problem.
They were actively bribed to not source raw-material from AMD (CPUs), and to delay launches of products based on AMD, so it doesn't get adequate market exposure.

And "uh..AMD should have done something similar" in general is a lame argument. You don't fight a crime with another crime. It becomes mafia, not business.
Posted on Reply
#13
[I.R.A]_FBi
TheMailMan78 said:
Another drama queen I see.

If Apple got to where they are via only marketing why couldn't Intel? At the time Intel was accused of doing anti-competitive practices "Pentium" was a house hold name. Even today few people have any idea who AMD is and what they offer. I think you managed to prove my point while you made your argument. ;)

Why would Dell or HP push an "unproven" product when Intel already did all the marketing? Not only could AMD not meet the demand at the time but Intels foot hold on the industry was in the mind of the people. Intel may not have had the product but by far they had the brains.

Anyway all this is besides the point. If this was about justice the money would go to AMD. But its not. Its going to buy more yachts in the EU.
There are some ppl who think AMD is an inferior rip of :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
If they are acquitted that means they are Innocent. In the U.S. you are Innocent until proven guilty.
Like I said, if American laws didn't prohibit the practice Intel has been penalised of in the EU, the investigation would not have commenced in the first place. The company will face a trial only once the investigations are complete. The fact that an investigation by a federal agency such as USFTC was launched into this, shows that your law disallows Intel's practices too, regardless of what happens in the courtroom or what's its outcome. In the US, nobody knows better than USFTC about what's legal and what's not when it comes to businesses. So again, Intel being charged under your law, or slipping/buying its way out of the case, becomes immaterial.
Posted on Reply
#15
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
They were actively bribed to not source raw-material from AMD (CPUs), and to delay launches of products based on AMD, so it doesn't get adequate market exposure.

And "uh..AMD should have done something similar" in general is a lame argument. You don't fight a crime with another crime. It becomes mafia, not business.
No, AMD's lack of market share has nothing to do with these "bribery" cases. It has to do with their total lack of marketing since, umm, I don't know, EVER.
Posted on Reply
#16
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Wile E said:
No, AMD's lack of market share has nothing to do with these "bribery" cases. It has to do with their total lack of marketing since, umm, I don't know, EVER.
When you are pretty much capped at 20% market share, and a global customer base, it becomes all the more impossible to carry out marketing. The marketing becomes futile when the larger player steps up his marketing beyond the point of you being able to counter it, even more so when the larger player abuses his position by buying off major OEMs' product-design divisions, distributors, etc.

Step one towards marketing in AMD's case is to get rid of that illegal market share cap Intel forced. If it can't do it being a company 1/10 the size of its competitor, it will seek the help of an entity 1000x the size of Intel to do the work, since that larger entity ends up getting a healthier market at the end.

And yes, the bribery cases do have a role to play against AMD, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the investigations in the first place. European companies were bribed to avoid/postpone AMD product launches.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
When you are pretty much capped at 20% market share, and a global customer base, it becomes all the more impossible to carry out marketing. The marketing becomes futile when the larger player steps up his marketing beyond the point of you being able to counter it, even more so when the larger player abuses his position by buying off major OEMs' product-design divisions, distributors, etc.

Step one towards marketing in AMD's case is to get rid of that illegal market share cap Intel forced. If it can't do it being a company 1/10 the size of its competitor, it will seek the help of an entity 1000x the size of Intel to do the work, since that larger entity ends up getting a healthier market at the end.

And yes, the bribery cases do have a role to play against AMD, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the investigations in the first place. European companies were bribed to avoid/postpone AMD product launches.
I understand being small limits the amount of possible marketing, but it does not eliminate it altogether. AMD has practically no ads, or anything of that nature. That's nobody's fault but their own.

Sorry, but I still don't buy into it. The fine should be overturned.
Posted on Reply
#18
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Can Cuba invade US? No? Then AMD's ad campaign would be futile, any number of ads it can afford. Intel forces its OEM partners that benefit from its dubious schemes to play the Intel jingle after every PC/notebook ad, Intel has its own ad campaign + uses the typically 95% of any given OEM's product lineup that uses Intel processors to its marketing credit (more products = more brochures and product lists carrying "Intel")

Sorry, but I don't buy into it. Every country with decent trade laws, a half-decent conscience, and the ability to enforce its laws, should similarly fine Intel.
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
Can Cuba invade US? No? Then AMD's ad campaign would be futile, any number of ads it can afford. Intel forces its OEM partners that benefit from its dubious schemes to play the Intel jingle after every PC/notebook ad, Intel has its own ad campaign + uses the typically 95% of any given OEM's product lineup that uses Intel processors to its marketing credit (more products = more brochures and product lists carrying "Intel")

Sorry, but I don't buy into it. Every country with decent trade laws, a half-decent conscience, and the ability to enforce its laws, should similarly fine Intel.
Well, then, I just flat disagree with you, and we should probably leave it at that. I've already spoken my peace on the issue.
Posted on Reply
#21
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
How did Intel hurt (monetarily) the EU , Japan or any other country? AMD was the one who lost sales. So why should a country or union be able to profit from Intel's alleged inappropriate business transactions?
Posted on Reply
#22
El Fiendo
Sugarush said:
Ahmm, that exactly what Intel did, please read the official accusations.

Arguing that the retailers are equally responsible, because they'd accepted this practice, is like saying it's your fault if somebody pushes you off the road and you don't try to crash your car into them (and total it) to stay on it.

And please everybody refrain from arguments like: "It's OK to to do this kind of stuff, this is free market etc. and yay capitalism is great" - grow up!

Forcing retailers to buy your product only is not "free", the free market is not wild west free, but is supposed to have fair rules, otherwise it is not efficient but becomes abusive and the consumers suffer.
I repeat myself.
If you only put our processors in your products.
In other words, don't sell AMD processors in your pre-builts or as officially recorded 'canceling their (AMD prebuilt) product lines'. Thank you, I did read them. And no, Intel did NOT force them. Retailers made the willing choice out of their own greed (capitalism) to go with more money for themselves by giving themselves a higher margin of profit on each Intel chip. Intel didn't point a gun at anyone's head. They didn't say I'm going to kill your kids. They offered rebates. I agree, its shady. Illegal? I don't believe so. Again, I've provided other examples of companies that do it yet aren't under scrutiny. I'm sure I could find many more.

Your analogy is false and kind of non sensical. If you want a better one that applies, its like someone telling you to shoot someone in the head. You agree. Then when brought up on murder charges you don't think they should charge you because you say 'they told me to'. Sorry, you're still guilty. So again, why the focus on Intel? Because they've got the pockets and government wants in on them.

So we're not allowed to argue for capitalism because you view it as childish? Let me try.

"Everyone! No more responses unless you agree with me! I mean grow up!"

Dunno, don't think that'll fly.
Posted on Reply
#24
Sugarush
El Fiendo said:
And no, Intel did NOT force them. Retailers made the willing choice out of their own greed (capitalism) to go with more money for themselves by giving themselves a higher margin of profit on each Intel chip. Intel didn't point a gun at anyone's head. They didn't say I'm going to kill your kids. They offered rebates. I agree, its shady. Illegal? I don't believe so. Again, I've provided other examples of companies that do it yet aren't under scrutiny. I'm sure I could find many more.
You have to think trough the economics of the whole thing: Intel is in a dominant position on the market. They offer exclusivity rebates - if the retailer isn't going for it, he gets a huge cost/price disadvantage and obviously loses a lot of business (as Intel chips dominate the market) to his competitors, who go for the rebates. This is potentially a bankrupt case for him.

So because Intel is dominant player, they are in fact forcing the retailers to accept these rebates, otherwise they will suffer huge losses and maybe go out of business.

El Fiendo said:
Your analogy is false and kind of non sensical.
Well...that's a good argument.

El Fiendo said:
If you want a better one that applies, its like someone telling you to shoot someone in the head. You agree. Then when brought up on murder charges you don't think they should charge you because you say 'they told me to'. Sorry, you're still guilty. So again, why the focus on Intel? Because they've got the pockets and government wants in on them.
Your analogy doesn't account for the fact, that Intel essentially did force the retailers to accept the rebates, so applied to your analogy that would be pointing a gun at someone's head and telling him to shoot the other guy.

El Fiendo said:
So we're not allowed to argue for capitalism because you view it as childish? Let me try.

"Everyone! No more responses unless you agree with me! I mean grow up!"

Dunno, don't think that'll fly.
It is indeed childish to explain Intel's malpractices by the capitalistic system. It is not a matter of capitalism vs. socialism. It is a case of illegal vs. legal. You know capitalist societies have laws too.
Posted on Reply
#25
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
Like I said, if American laws didn't prohibit the practice Intel has been penalised of in the EU, the investigation would not have commenced in the first place. The company will face a trial only once the investigations are complete. The fact that an investigation by a federal agency such as USFTC was launched into this, shows that your law disallows Intel's practices too, regardless of what happens in the courtroom or what's its outcome. In the US, nobody knows better than USFTC about what's legal and what's not when it comes to businesses. So again, Intel being charged under your law, or slipping/buying its way out of the case, becomes immaterial.
Bta your logic is 100% correct. In a perfectly functioning American society. Honestly I really wish you were right too. However it simply doesn't work this way. The U.S. government is dominated with knee jerk reactions now. Ill give you a good example. A while back during the super bowl Janet Jackson showed her nipple. A 3 second shot of a nipple with a pasty on it. The FCC flipped out. Within a month 2 major DJs were ripped off the air and everyone was afraid to say anything. Millions of dollars worth of fines were handed out for just saying the word ass on the air. All of this happened because of a 3 second nipple shot. It was sad and pathetic.

So now we have the USFTC and its suspicion of Intel. I say suspicion because I haven't heard of any formal charges yet from the USFTC. After Enron and all the other crap that has been going on in the U.S. market this screams knee jerk reaction. Witch hunts have become a favorite pastime of our government lately. Of course the USFTC is going to investigate Intel after the EU "fined" them. I'm surprised we haven't read of any charges yet. Like I said, there's blood in the water.

HammerON said:
How did Intel hurt (monetarily) the EU , Japan or any other country? AMD was the one who lost sales. So why should a country or union be able to profit from Intel's alleged inappropriate business transactions?
Oh no its not profit. Its "justice". :laugh:

Sugarush said:
You have to think trough the economics of the whole thing: Intel is in a dominant position on the market. They offer exclusivity rebates - if the retailer isn't going for it, he gets a huge cost/price disadvantage and obviously loses a lot of business (as Intel chips dominate the market) to his competitors, who go for the rebates. This is potentially a bankrupt case for him.
So because Intel is dominant player, they are in fact forcing the retailers to accept these rebates, otherwise they will suffer huge losses and maybe go out of business.
Your analogy doesn't account for the fact, that Intel essentially did force the retailers to accept the rebates, so applied to your analogy that would be pointing a gun at someone's head and telling him to shoot the other guy.
It is indeed childish to explain Intel's malpractices by the capitalistic system. It is not a matter of capitalism vs. socialism. It is a case of illegal vs. legal. You know capitalist societies have laws too.
I guess by forcing you mean they had guns to thier children's heads? I ask because thats much more likely to happen than for HP and Dell not to own phones. One phone call to the USFTC would have brought this to a halt. But you know why they didn't call? Because their legal departments at the time saw nothing wrong with what Intel was doing and everyone made a killing. Please there are no victims in this case but Intel.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment