EU Charges Intel with Monopoly Abuse

[Easy Rhino]

aint that kinda like NV getting into bed with the game devs?

yup. that is what happens. as long as the govts dont get involved in promoting one company or another im fine with it. obviously im against extortion and things of that nature but if you have a product and you want to sell it to many people who will buy it as possible then you have to make deals with all levels.

 

[Atech]

aint that kinda like NV getting into bed with the game devs?

Yep, also known as crony capitalism.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Yep, also known as crony capitalism.

there is nothing wrong with two companies working together to defeat another. that is competition. as long as it is done without the use of physical force then it is all good in my mind.

 

[Atech]

there is nothing wrong with two companies working together to defeat another. that is competition. as long as it is done without the use of physical force then it is all good in my mind.

Free market economists disagree

 

[Easy Rhino]

Free market economists disagree

explain please

 

[kwchang007]

AMD couldn't have underbid as far as Intel did without going out of business. Intel can afford to distribute CPU's to OEM's at a loss, I'd assume -- far cheaper than AMD could ever even dream of.

Sorry bud, Intel doesn't sell their CPU's for a lost. Honestly, if you have the performance lead, why sell your chips for a loss when you're competitor is a fab generation behind you? If you sell at $x, for y performance, you're competitor wants to undercut your $x at y performance. If you produce chips at less cost than your competitor and you're losing money, your competitor is losing money unless you waste lots of money or your competitor is really good at saving it. AMD is neither good at saving money compared to Intel and Intel doesn't throw money down the drain. If Intel takes losses on their CPU's because they followed suit with AMD's cuts, then AMD would be losing more money. If that happened it'd be great in Intel's eyes, they'd eventually force AMD out of business.

 

[suraswami]

But Intel's prices are always higher than AMD's. Any new hot product that is introduced into the market any tech company will ask for more. That is how the tech world functions. Didn't Intel ask for a Arm and a Leg to buy their processors when they first released any new technology?

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'!!

 

[jydie]

I do not think that AMD or Intel have ever overcharged for their CPUs. They simply base the price on performance compared to what is currently on the market... Intel and most every other manufacturer does the same thing. I bet the production costs are fairly close for a 4GB flash drive compared to a 1GB flash drive. Yet, the 4GB drive is 2-3 times more expensive. The same is true for hard drives, video cards, etc.

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.)

 

[Atech]

explain please

Take a degree in economics?

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.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Take a degree in economics?

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.

i know how free market capitalism works. i am saying that in a free market collusion between companies in two different markets is natural and good. govt intervention in contracts between companies is unnatural and bad.

 

[Atech]

i know how free market capitalism works. i am saying that in a free market collusion between companies in two different markets is natural and good. govt intervention in contracts between companies is unnatural and bad.

That's what anti-capitalists and mercantilists would say, that all capitalism naturally results in collusion and thus free markets are fundamentally impossible. Right wing free market economists would disagree.

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.

 

[Easy Rhino]

That's what anti-capitalists would say, that all capitalism naturally results in collusion and thus free markets are fundementally impossible. Right wing free market economists would disagree.

The basic problem with collusion can be thought of in fundemental 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.

anti-capitalists are incorrect in thinking capitalism results in collusion. i dont know why you think we disagree? im just saying that companies will inhibit competition and that is natural. it is how they do it that is what makes the difference. paying companies to break contracts behind the back of another company is obviously against free market principles. paying companies who dont have contracts with other companies isn't

 

[Atech]

anti-capitalists are incorrect in thinking capitalism results in collusion. i dont know why you think we disagree? im just saying that companies will inhibit competition and that is natural. it is how they do it that is what makes the difference. paying companies to break contracts behind the back of another company is obviously against free market principles. paying companies who dont have contracts with other companies is not illegal.

You seemed to state that you disagreed with me. If you believe collusion is economically bad, then fine, so do I.

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.

 

[HellasVagabond]

Intel States Its Actions in Europe Benefit Consumers

Intel released an answer to the EU

SANTA CLARA, Calif., July 27, 2007 – Intel Corporation today issued the following statement from Bruce Sewell, senior vice president and general counsel, in response to the decision by the European Commission's Directorate General for Competition to issue a statement of objections concerning the company's business practices."We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers. While we would certainly have preferred to avoid the cost and inconvenience of establishing that our competitive conduct in Europe has been lawful, the Commission's decision to issue a Statement of Objections means that at last Intel will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations made by our primary competitor.The case is based on complaints from a direct competitor rather than customers or consumers. The Commission has an obligation to investigate those complaints. However, a Statement of Objections contains only preliminary allegations and does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of European Union law. Intel will now be given the chance to respond directly to the Commission's concerns as part of the administrative process. The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling. When competitors perform and execute the market rewards them. When they falter and under-perform the market responds accordingly."

 

[FreedomEclipse]

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.

Well AMD did say it was looking for outside funding

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

 

[tkpenalty]

Well all the systems in which I previously was going to use E6600s in them now are going to use 6000+s. No... OC = Busted warranty remember?

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

For shame Intel, for shame......

seriously, did anyone NOT know about intel's obscene rebate program, or was I one of the lucky ones?

I really thought this was obvious.

But Intel's prices are always higher than AMD's. Any new hot product that is introduced into the market any tech company will ask for more. That is how the tech world functions. Didn't Intel ask for a Arm and a Leg to buy their processors when they first released any new technology?

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'!!

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.

 

[Solaris17]

ftw

 

[MAXLD]

This looks like the Lockheed scandal in the 50's. :shadedshu

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":

This Lockheed coup, known as the "Deal of the Century", caused major political controversy in Europe and West German minister of defence Franz Josef Strauss was almost forced to resign over the issue.
During later investigation into Lockheeds business practices it was discovered that Lockheed had paid out millions of dollars in 'Sales Incentives' in each of these countries to secure the deal. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands confessed to taking more than 1 million USD in bribes from Lockheed to buy the F-104.

in http://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.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

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 UE is working to prevent cases like this Lockheed scandal.

Not what its intended to be, but its the sad reality these days.

 

[Solaris17]

I hope they get sued big time. i mean paying off companys to take their proc? bad move way to put a choke hold on the competition that isnt being competative. thats taking a gun to a fist fight i hope intel gets mad crazy sued and some other punishment i cant think of like stop all production for a month of something.