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
Wile E
Power User
Look at post 196, I believe it addressed what you asked already.
Posted on Reply
#2
Meecrob
Wile E said:
Again, changing the subject I see.

At any rate, I believe that offering discounts should not be illegal, regardless of where you are. It's not my choice, obviously, thus Intel likely won't win the case, but it's my opinion that these types of controls on business are bad in the long run.

And quit insinuating that those of us that don't agree with this decision are against AMD. I makes you look like an ass. AMD is the only one at fault for AMD's position. It has nothing to do with any feelings on the company.
hows this address the fact that what your saying is people outside a country/region should be able to decide if the laws in that region are valid/fair?

Hail the all mighty Intel the doers of no wrong!!!!
Posted on Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
Meecrob said:
hows this address the fact that what your saying is people outside a country/region should be able to decide if the laws in that region are valid/fair?

Hail the all mighty Intel the doers of no wrong!!!!
Stop. You are just making yourself look even worse. It's getting embarrassing now.

Again, what does my opinion of this verdict actually have anything to do with the name of the company. You could substitute any company names you see fit, in any industry you see fit, and my opinion would be no different.

And I feel that uniform laws should be agreed upon by all nations/regions, not different in every region. As such I, of course, am inclined to agree more with the US's way of doing things. Even more so considering that the US is the largest driver of the world economy, for better or for worse. That clear it up for you?
Posted on Reply
#4
Meecrob
Wile E said:
Stop. You are just making yourself look even worse. It's getting embarrassing now.

Again, what does my opinion of this verdict actually have anything to do with the name of the company. You could substitute any company names you see fit, in any industry you see fit, and my opinion would be no different.

And I feel that uniform laws should be agreed upon by all nations/regions, not different in every region. As such I, of course, am inclined to agree more with the US's way of doing things. Even more so considering that the US is the largest driver of the world economy, for better or for worse. That clear it up for you?
yeah, you like the US status quoe.

we wont ever agree on that, I feel this countries laws are as screwed up as the rest of the worlds on avg, mostly due to the fact that so many laws get approved due to lobbyists and bad/false info(see lies).

I could give examples,but there is no point, you wont agree with me that for example tossing some kid who has a scrape bag with weed crumbs in it in jail for 6 months and giving him a life long felony drug conviction on his records is BS, specly when a drunk drive who hits a copcar can get tossed in the can and be out the next day with a fine and maby probation, if hes done it a few times, AA and maby treatment.....(yes, this happens here all the time)

What this country/world needs is a format and reinstall in the govt/laws dept, remove the stupid useless dead weight laws that make no sense and fix the systems that allowed the laws to be made.

oh, and do you agree with laws like the DMCA? just wondering, because most of the world and even US citizens who know what it is dont agree with it.
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Now this discussion is going south of the topic. I suggest you end it, as I won't close the thread.
Posted on Reply
#6
Wile E
Power User
Meecrob said:
yeah, you like the US status quoe.

we wont ever agree on that, I feel this countries laws are as screwed up as the rest of the worlds on avg, mostly due to the fact that so many laws get approved due to lobbyists and bad/false info(see lies).

I could give examples,but there is no point, you wont agree with me that for example tossing some kid who has a scrape bag with weed crumbs in it in jail for 6 months and giving him a life long felony drug conviction on his records is BS, specly when a drunk drive who hits a copcar can get tossed in the can and be out the next day with a fine and maby probation, if hes done it a few times, AA and maby treatment.....(yes, this happens here all the time)

What this country/world needs is a format and reinstall in the govt/laws dept, remove the stupid useless dead weight laws that make no sense and fix the systems that allowed the laws to be made.

oh, and do you agree with laws like the DMCA? just wondering, because most of the world and even US citizens who know what it is dont agree with it.
No, I don't agree with the DMCA. I said I'm inclined to agree more, not blindly agree with the US.

Either way, I'm done here. We've both said our peace, and still don't agree. Pointless to take it further.
Posted on Reply
#7
Meecrob
/me throws wet ball of TP at back of WileE's head and runs away
Posted on Reply
#8
DaedalusHelios
TheMailMan78 said:
Automotive makers should be fined too. I mean I've gotten several "loyalty" rebates over the years. Why doesn't the EU go after BMW? I got 5,000 dollar rebate for buying a second BMW and not another brand. I only got that rebate because I bought another BMW. If I would have bought a Benz and skipped a purchase from BMW that rebate would have been lost the next time I bought a one (BMW). So yeah rebates do work based off of a competitors sale.

Also what about El Fiendo point about restaurants selling only Coke and not Pepsi. Or vise versa. SO many other industries do what Intel did its pathetic. I'm not going to argue whether Intel broke the law or not. All I'm saying is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. This is why I feel its a payday and not "justice".
I totally agree. Anybody who thinks that Intel was being immoral with rebates seriously needs to learn more about how business operates across the world. There is nothing immoral with it. I think people just want a reason to be mad at Intel. I use and build with both at work and home. People treat Intel as if there are evil people running it. They are just a bunch of boring business men making legal contracts with other businesses.
Posted on Reply
#9
sideeffect
People need to chill out this is only the first of many appeals.

Just to clear some things up though.

Intel do need to obey European Law when they sell products in Europe.
People in Europe do know how businesses work.
The economy of Europe is very close to that of the USA but with far less foreign debt.
Intel can't afford to not sell in Europe.
Posted on Reply
#10
Sugarush
FordGT90Concept said:
They were competitive prices becuase Intel and AMD are both still around. If Intel undercut AMD, Intel's bottome line would take a hit because they wouldn't be making money on processors sold and AMD would be out of business because they would run out of revenue. Cost over value prevents what you are suggesting from ever happening (at least for long).
I didn't say that Intel undercut AMD. Intel didn't allow a fair competition based on products/prices but rather tried to cap AMD's market share using their weight with the OEMs/retailers.

FordGT90Concept said:
Toyota is dominating now. Ford/GM were dominating a few years ago (before the economic collapse).
By saying Toyota is dominating you probably mean they are the biggest car manufacturer, which isn't the same.

FordGT90Concept said:
As I said, that claim is false. Only Dell didn't offer AMD and they said it was because consumers didn't demand AMD products.
The thing is, we don't know if there would've been a higher demand for AMD chips, because Intel effectively capped their market share. You cannot argue via demand, when the supply is effectively capped.
Posted on Reply
#11
Sugarush
Wile E said:
No they aren't. I have seen countless rebate offers for things like anti virus or burning suites that offer you a discount for turning in a competitor's product. It doesn't matter why or how they offer the rebate. It's just a rebate no matter how you look at it.

Their market position has nothing to do with it at all, nor should it ever. By your logic, it would be ok for AMD to offer rebates to OEMs for not using Intel products, but not for Intel to do the same. That my friend, is called a double standard.

And as far as marketing, if AMD actually had a decent marketing department, their cpus would've been in demand, and they would've been in such a position that Intel's rebates would've been turned down by the OEMs. The fault lays on AMD for their lack of market share, period.
It would've been perfectly fine, if Intel had offered the consumers to turn in an AMD chip and get theirs cheaper. But Intel decided that it's not the consumers' decision to choose what CPU thy want in their PC.

Their market position is essential in this case, because they could use their weight with the OEMs to cap AMD's market share. You could look at these rebates from another perspective: Either you sell only our chips and get them for decent prices or you decide to sell AMD's chips as well (i.e. let them get a bigger share of your whole sales than we want) and get our rip-off prices. And since you depend on us for the most of your sales it would be very stupid to do that...

As I said in onther post: demand for your chips doesn't matter if the bigger player effectively caps your suplly via OEMs/retailers.

Intel has always been bigger and that's OK. But they shouldn't have abused their power with the OEMs/retailers to exclude AMD from the market, they should have left the decision to the consumers.

Ask Spider-man he'll tell you about power and responsibility :)
Posted on Reply
#12
Wile E
Power User
Sugarush said:
It would've been perfectly fine, if Intel had offered the consumers to turn in an AMD chip and get theirs cheaper. But Intel decided that it's not the consumers' decision to choose what CPU thy want in their PC.

Their market position is essential in this case, because they could use their weight with the OEMs to cap AMD's market share. You could look at these rebates from another perspective: Either you sell only our chips and get them for decent prices or you decide to sell AMD's chips as well (i.e. let them get a bigger share of your whole sales than we want) and get our rip-off prices. And since you depend on us for the most of your sales it would be very stupid to do that...

As I said in onther post: demand for your chips doesn't matter if the bigger player effectively caps your suplly via OEMs/retailers.

Intel has always been bigger and that's OK. But they shouldn't have abused their power with the OEMs/retailers to exclude AMD from the market, they should have left the decision to the consumers.

Ask Spider-man he'll tell you about power and responsibility :)
Yet numerous OEMs decide to decline the offer, and still offered AMD machines. Meaning that their "rip off" prices apparently weren't as terrible as people make them out to be.

And as far as I'm concerned, the decision to sell only Intel cpus lies more on the hands of the OEMs, not Intel. And I also believe it should be perfectly within the rights of a company to not offer a product they don't want to offer.

Bottom line, nobody has said anything that convinces me something wrong has been done here.

And, considering this is all just continually going in circles, with everyone restating the same points over and over, this will be my last post on the topic until someone provides new facts.
Posted on Reply
#13
Sugarush
Wile E said:
Yet numerous OEMs decide to decline the offer, and still offered AMD machines. Meaning that their "rip off" prices apparently weren't as terrible as people make them out to be.

And as far as I'm concerned, the decision to sell only Intel cpus lies more on the hands of the OEMs, not Intel. And I also believe it should be perfectly within the rights of a company to not offer a product they don't want to offer.

Bottom line, nobody has said anything that convinces me something wrong has been done here.

And, considering this is all just continually going in circles, with everyone restating the same points over and over, this will be my last post on the topic until someone provides new facts.
Nobody said there were no AMD machines sold:

"* 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"

So you see AMD machines could be sold but only if the sales didn't contribute more than 20% (or even less in other cases) of the OEM's sales.

The final decision was obviously that of the OEM's, but considering the consequences of the "wrong" decision, it is a pretty straightforward thing in terms of business prospects to accept Intel's rebates. But that doesn't make it a fair practice, and that's why there are laws to prevent that kind of behavior.

Lots of people argue that as long as Intel didn't put the gun the their heads or threatened to stop supplying their chips altogether, it was OK to offer those rebates, cause that's just a rebate and nobody was (literally) forcing the OEM's to go along with it.

But not everything is always black&white in your face obvious. There are a lot of ways to do things more subtle. Just look at the tax evading practices.

And those rebates is just a subtle way to put a gun to your head and make you do it the Intel's way.
Posted on Reply
#14
Wile E
Power User
Sugarush said:
Nobody said there were no AMD machines sold:

"* 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"

So you see AMD machines could be sold but only if the sales didn't contribute more than 20% (or even less in other cases) of the OEM's sales.

The final decision was obviously that of the OEM's, but considering the consequences of the "wrong" decision, it is a pretty straightforward thing in terms of business prospects to accept Intel's rebates. But that doesn't make it a fair practice, and that's why there are laws to prevent that kind of behavior.

Lots of people argue that as long as Intel didn't put the gun the their heads or threatened to stop supplying their chips altogether, it was OK to offer those rebates, cause that's just a rebate and nobody was (literally) forcing the OEM's to go along with it.

But not everything is always black&white in your face obvious. There are a lot of ways to do things more subtle. Just look at the tax evading practices.

And those rebates is just a subtle way to put a gun to your head and make you do it the Intel's way.
No new facts. Still don't agree.
Posted on Reply
#15
Sugarush
Wile E said:
No new facts. Still don't agree.
Dont' worry, it's not my mission to convince you :)
Posted on Reply
#16
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Meecrob said:
all i see you saying is that intel shouldn't be fined or even yelled at even if they broke the law because you dont agree with the law, and that because you dont agree with the law it should be changed.

yet when I turn that around and ask if our countries laws should be changed to fit non-Americans opinions/ethics you get mad and avoid the issue.
Honestly I'm still not convinced this law applied to Intel at the time of their "wrong doing". Hell I don't even think it applies to them now. Also why isn't the EU going after any of the OEM's? When you get busted for soliciting prostitution you AND the hooker go to jail. There is just something very fishy about all this. In the US you can fight something all the way to the Supreme court. In the E.U. it seems like you have the fox watching the chickens. Now I could be wrong so don't jump down my neck but who decides if the E.U. decision is correct?
Posted on Reply
#17
HalfAHertz
Intel is not a US only company. Yes, the main offices are in the US but most of the R&D and production facilities are outside of the US. On top of that, it doesn't matter where your company is based at, as long as you sell your product on a foregin market, you are obliged to follow their laws. The EU law system clearly states that what intel did was illegal. End of point. They have broken the EU law, hence they are penalized by the EU. As a previous example, if you break the speed limit in the US, you get a ticket and are pennalized by the US goverment. I don't se why this argument has to continue...

TheMailMan78 said:
Honestly I'm still not convinced this law applied to Intel at the time of their "wrong doing". Hell I don't even think it applies to them now. Also why isn't the EU going after any of the OEM's? When you get busted for soliciting prostitution you AND the hooker go to jail. There is just something very fishy about all this. In the US you can fight something all the way to the Supreme court. In the E.U. it seems like you have the fox watching the chickens. Now I could be wrong so don't jump down my neck but who decides if the E.U. decision is correct?
This is the final decision. There is no higher institution than the EU court, but for a case to reach the EU court, it first has to pass through nummerous smaller institutions where it is evaluated, approved/dissaproved and investigated...The EU court is huge, slow and very expensive, so believe me when I say that the institutions do everything in their power to eliminate a problem before it reaches the EU court to reduce costs, solve the issue sooner, etc.
Posted on Reply
#18
jamesrt2004
HalfAHertz said:
Intel is not a US only company. Yes, the main offices are in the US but most of the R&D and production facilities are outside of the US. On top of that, it doesn't matter where your company is based at, as long as you sell your product on a foregin market, you are obliged to follow their laws. The EU law system clearly states that what intel did was illegal. End of point. They have broken the EU law, hence they are penalized by the EU. As a previous example, if you break the speed limit in the US, you get a ticket and are pennalized by the US goverment. I don't se why this argument has to continue...



This is the final decision. There is no higher institution than the EU court, but for a case to reach the EU court, it first has to pass through nummerous smaller institutions where it is evaluated, approved/dissaproved and investigated...
+1.....

if i stole something on holiday I am faced with their laws not ours... end of. Its nothign to do with EU being greedy or anything.. its just they broke the law.... so what if it's not in the American laws.. its in the EU, you can't go to eu (if your from america) do something wrong and be like,, well its legal in my country.. your just trying to get money out of me...

its just stupid.
Posted on Reply
#20
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Sugarush said:
"* 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"
That doesn't sound like a rebate, it sounds like a contract. As a contract, that is completely legit. Intel is going to make a lot of processors available to them so they need forewarning of large orders. By providing some security to Intel, "manufacturer C" gets reduced prices.


"Manufacturer C" should get strung up for agreeing to the contract, not Intel. "Manufacturer C" willingly agreed to Intel's terms. Had they not, this should have been in the courts back in 2002--the contract should have never been agreed to.


Assuming Intel is guilty, how does that warrant a 1+ billion euro fine? Did this "manufacturer C" even net that much revenue in the same time period?

Why is this coming up 3-4 years after the fact?

Why does the money go to reducing EU member fees rather than the parties hurt by anti-competitive behavior that they alledge?


Everything about it smells fishy. Again, Intel will lose the appeal because it is a circus court. There's no doubt in my mind on that.
Posted on Reply
#21
HalfAHertz
FordGT90Concept said:
That doesn't sound like a rebate, it sounds like a contract. As a contract, that is completely legit
I guess there weren't any legal documents signed to proove it meaning that everything was under the table.


FordGT90Concept said:

"Manufacturer C" should get strung up for agreeing to the contract, not Intel. "Manufacturer C" willingly agreed to Intel's terms. Had they not, this should have been in the courts back in 2002--the contract should have never been agreed to.
Let us take AMD out of the equasion for a sec. So Manufacturer C was forced to buy at least 80% of its stock by intel, otherwise the prices would have been jacked up and the said supplier would not have been able to compete fairly on the market with its compettitors who have already agreed to intel's terms. Thus leading to them having to sell the products with a smaller proffit margin/at a loss.

FordGT90Concept said:

How does that warrant a 1+ billion euro fine? Did this "manufacturer C" even net that much revenue in the same time period?
If you add all the manufacturers together and bear in mind the >3 year period, I'm pretty sure it all adds up and is in fact even inferrior. The EU is no small market and for a company such as intel that makes 6-8 bilion yearly, this is negligible


FordGT90Concept said:

Why is this coming up 3-4 years after the fact?
Because as mentioned earlier there are in fact many institutions prior to the EU court that need to investigate the case.

FordGT90Concept said:

Why does the money go to reducing EU member fees rather than the parties hurt by anti-competitive behavior that they alledge?
It goes to the EU body, where if at a later date any of the hurt parties wants to sign up for a subsidy, can do so and state by what means and how much it was affected.
Posted on Reply
#22
Sugarush
FordGT90Concept said:
That doesn't sound like a rebate, it sounds like a contract. As a contract, that is completely legit. Intel is going to make a lot of processors available to them so they need forewarning of large orders. By providing some security to Intel, "manufacturer C" gets reduced prices.


"Manufacturer C" should get strung up for agreeing to the contract, not Intel. "Manufacturer C" willingly agreed to Intel's terms. Had they not, this should have been in the courts back in 2002--the contract should have never been agreed to.


How does that warrant a 1+ billion euro fine? Did this "manufacturer C" even net that much revenue in the same time period?

Why is this coming up 3-4 years after the fact?

Why does the money go to reducing EU member fees rather than the parties hurt by anti-competitive behavior that they alledge?


Everything about it smells fishy. Again, Intel will lose the appeal because it is a circus court. There's no doubt in my mind on that.
You can sign a contract on whatever you want, you can sign a contract on fixing prices with your competitors, but that doesn't mean it's going to be legal.

There are practically only two competitors on the CPU market for PCs, Intel and AMD. So by asking the OEM to get at least 80% of his CPU needs from Intel, you're asking to not get more than 20% from AMD. Nobofy even mentioned the need for forewarning in case of large orders.

Are we arguing about the fine amount or Intel's guilt, cause we have to get that first before we can discuss the fine itself.

The case has been in courts for years already, you don't expect a verdict over night, do you?

Why does the confiscated mafia cash go to the government and not the victims of their crimes?
Posted on Reply
#23
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Sugarush said:
You can sign a contract on whatever you want, you can sign a contract on fixing prices with your competitors, but that doesn't mean it's going to be legal.
The fine must be addressed to both parties, not just one. Both parties are equally guilty of the "crime."



Sugarush said:
Are we arguing about the fine amount or Intel's guilt, cause we have to get that first before we can discuss the fine itself.
If Intel is guilty, it takes two to tango. Only one fine was issued so the partner in crime is missing. Also, if Intel is guilty, the fine needs to be based on the crime, not the situation of the subjects involved (e.g. if a movie star crashes into your ride, they need only pay the amount in damages based on the value of your car, not their net worth).

Whomever is pushing these charges need to show that AMD lost x amount of money because of this contract. That not only helps in determining the fines for Intel and "manufacturer C," it also dictates how much compenstation AMD deserves. AMD was the victim, after all.

So, even assuming Intel's guilt, everything else doesn't fall in place as it should.


Sugarush said:
Why does the confiscated mafia cash go to the government and not the victims of their crimes?
In many ways, the government was the victim of the mafia. The mafia took over the role of the government and beating back the mafia meant the government was taking back control. It cost the government (city and federal) a lot money to right the wrong.
Posted on Reply
#24
dr emulator (madmax)
what makes me laugh at all this is ,it's us that will foot the bill by higher prices not intel:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#25
HalfAHertz
dr emulator (madmax) said:
what makes me laugh at all this is ,it's us that will foot the bill by higher prices not intel:shadedshu
We'll have to wait and see. I don't think the prices of any of intel's current products will go up. They will just remain at their current price points for a bit longer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment