EU Completes Intel Antitrust Case Investigations, Likely to Find it Guilty: Sources

[Salsoolo]

outside amerika, please go by the rules intel
it doesnt work here

 

[silkstone]

WTF does that mean? What are you the Riddler?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Esz2h6sKmUU/R7oO09kWamI/AAAAAAAAAic/xCxauoBkQWs/s400/Carrey_Riddler.jpg

LOL, nice pic.
No, i mean it's not all clear cut or black and white. In my opinion they went too far and should be punished for straying too far to the darker side of grey (i really wanted to write "Dark Side" but that would be too starwarsy). Everyone's opinion of what is right and wrong is different tho, i guess

 

[tkpenalty]

GG. Sick of only seeing intel offerings on every fucking catalogue.

 

[Flyordie]

The European market is too large for Intel to leave. If they did they would see huge reductions in the amount of chips sold, which would then mean them forcing the prices up in the USA so they can maintain profit margins. If you really have that kind of attitude to the EU then you may want to consider just how expensive it'll be to purchase your nice new shiny intel chip if they leave the European market.
Once you considered that i doubt you want them to leave and just pay the fine, behave for a few years and then go back to business as usual.

The shear size of the EU and the shear mountain of logistical work there has to be done is astronomical - no wonder the report will be "x" hundreds of pages long - think of how many countries are in the EU, speaking different languages, and now consider how many retailers there are in each country. No wonder the document is going to be massive.

Toward the legal side of things, although most countries except the EU laws many still do not abide by them. The UK has the LARGEST DNA/capita database in the world and it has been proven that if half (if not more) of those samples are against the human rights act. What needs to be seen here is just where in the EU these charges are being brought, and just WHO decided that they needed to be. This isn't some way of making a quick buck, again i ask you to realise how big the EU is, 10% of $38billion (IIRC) isn't going to do squat for the countries - it'll be most likely used to fund some kind of program to refund the retailers/ other companies that lost out to intel. Who is to say that the only other company is AMD, what about VIA?

Finally, this should have been brought about by AMD/VIA and not the EU, whether it was and the EU are just fronting it i don't know. I have yet to see any evidence and therefore can not make an informed decision.

AMD/IBM and VIA are listed as "Victims".... but AMD was the signatory of the complaint against Intel with the EU. So... AMD did initiate this investigation.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Intel doesn't need to "force" anyone with threats of broken kneecaps and bricks through windows -- this isn't TV.

Let's say you're a computer manufacturer. You have 100,000 orders for computers you need to fill. AMD is able to provide 20,000 chips to you -- Intel can provide as many as you need.

Now, you could just buy all your chips from Intel -- sure, why not. But hey -- AMD comes along and says, "We know we don't have the capacity to provide all 100,000 chips you need -- but we'll provide 20,000 very fine and fast chips to you at a comparable price with Intel."

You, as the computer manufacturer, sees this as a good deal -- you can gets the chips you want from both companies, and have them both compete over prices to court you, their customer.

If AMD can't get me all 100,000 chips, I won't buy any. It costs me money to setup a separate SKU for an AMD and Intel version and adds several hundred hours of extra time on the support front to make sure techsupport and other supplies have everything they need to support two platforms.

It's kind of like Van Wyk (a trucking company) and other businesses that make large purchases: buying two products, in the end, is more of a PITA than it is worth. So Van Wyk buys 100 Volvos, a call center buys 100 identically spec'd PCs, a hospital buys a dozen of the same model network printers, etc.

The only way I would buy those 20,000 processors is if there is something distinct about them. For instance, if I have a lot of customers that want sub $1000 PCs and those 100,000 processors are for more than $1000 PCs, I might grab both to satisfy two different customers. However, if that entire order of 100,000 is for a single customer, I wouldn't even think about anyone that can't fulfill the order.

This is where the fair market ends and crooked monopolistic practices begin.

Instead of just being happy with 80% of your business, Intel tells you, "you will buy all of your chips from us."

You say, "no way, I can buy from who I want to."

Intel then tells you, "if you continue to buy chips from AMD, we will stop selling you any chips, or we will raise our prices so much for you that you'll suffer."

And now, Intel has in effect "forced you" to buy only from them. You have 100,000 orders to fill -- AMD can only provide 20,000. You could buy some chips from Intel and some from AMD, but if you Intel refuses to sell you chips at a good price, you won't be able to fill those other 80,000 orders, and your business will suffer or even go out of business!

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Intel is hurting the free market with their practices. If you truly believe in and worship the free market, you should agree that they need to be punished.

Intel doesn't have to say a thing. The market conditions prefer them. This "say" stuff is fabricated and/or stretched so the EU can get their money.

Even if they did say anything, it wouldn't pull customers in, it would push them away to AMD, Via, or IBM. That's what makes that whole fabricated story EU is pushing funny.

Again, you can't "force" customers to do anything. You can "encourage" them to conduct business elsewhere pretty easy though.


I would buy the 20,000 processors from AMD and tell anyone who was expecting those extra 80,000 processors that Intel backstabed us so we aren't able to fulfill the order as soon as expected. If that was a corporate customer, I would keep them informed on how much longer it will take for AMD to get the rest of the processors in.

Actually they are only taking 25-30% of it... AMD gets 60% of the fine...sooo.... where you going with that statement... cause you are preying on the people who didn't read up on EU regulations a little bit...

AMD wouldn't see a dime of Intel's money if the EU wasn't greedy stickin their finger in jars it doesn't belong.

On the other hand, if EU bought up all AMD assets effectively making a monopoly then EU and USA would have a right to intervene and break the corporation up. It is necessary so that Intel, alone, does not control the global price for x86 processors.

 

[Hayder_Master]

what is the problem is that much for intel , 200 billion earnings 38 billion EU no problem

 

[kaneda]

blah, to those blabbering about the beauty of the free market, it was lack of regulation of the market thats cause this global economic crisis.

so screw you and your free market, ill take a regulated one which ensures the security of the ineternational community and economnies.

 

[mdm-adph]

I would buy the 20,000 processors from AMD and tell anyone who was expecting those extra 80,000 processors that Intel backstabed us so we aren't able to fulfill the order as soon as expected. If that was a corporate customer, I would keep them informed on how much longer it will take for AMD to get the rest of the processors in.

You and I both know that's not how the business world works.

You're describing a hypothetical business owner with integrity -- that doesn't exist in the real world.

In the real world, you'd tell AMD "no" and buy all your chips from Intel, because if you try to make a stand, someone else picks up your business.

Thus, AMD is screwed out of money by Intel using their market position.

By the way -- you do know that Intel has already been found guilty of doing this in Japan, right?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If Intel pisses me off in anyway, they won't get a dime from me. Telling me how to conduct my business means they lost a customer. Intel isn't stupid, they know that's how it works. That's why I have a very hard time believing these claims have even a shred of truth. I want to see a letter Intel sent to an OEM that confirms what everyone is saying Intel is doing (that is, spells out these agreements saying buying someone elses product will result in an increase of our price). So far, all I've seen is hearsay and since when was hearsay admitted as evidence in court? Apparently it is in EU and Japan (other places too that are jumping on this hate-Intel/Seagate/Microsoft bandwagon). That's why my frustration is pointed directly at the EU. This (and most other modern anti-trust lawsuits) is a circus of greed.

 

[a_ump]

If Intel pisses me off in anyway, they won't get a dime from me. Telling me how to conduct my business means they lost a customer. Intel isn't stupid, they know that's how it works. That's why I have a very hard time believing these claims have even a shred of truth. I want to see a letter Intel sent to an OEM that confirms what everyone is saying Intel is doing (that is, spells out these agreements saying buying someone elses product will result in an increase of our price). So far, all I've seen is hearsay and since when was hearsay admitted as evidence in court? Apparently it is in EU and Japan (other places too that are jumping on this hate-Intel/Seagate/Microsoft bandwagon). That's why my frustration is pointed directly at the EU. This (and most other modern anti-trust lawsuits) is a circus of greed.

circus of greed? 2.28 billion from 3.8 leaves the EU 1.52 billion. what the hell is that going to do for 25 diff countries? 60.8 million per country i mean i guess that is a fair bit of cash but nothing that represents greed imo. I don't see what the big deal is, 3.8billion isn't going to hurt intel in anyway. I just dont' see greed when the EU is only getting at most 40% of the fine, though someone mentioned they were only getting 25-30% of it so that'd be even less if it is that.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is in my definition of greed. It doesn't matter if it is a cent or a trillion dollars. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't see anything to incriminate Intel let alone enough to levee a fine. Where's the evidence excluding all the hearsay?


What difference does it make anyway? Intel lost as expected. The only way that will change is if anti-trust laws are changed (written to be extremely specific in terms of what can be considered "anti-trust"). They won't because too many people profit from it. Effectively, it's bad to be the best at what you do. In baseball, you get slapped with asterisks in the Hall of Fame. In software, you get sued for including software that is required to obtain competitive software. In hardware, you get sued for making a product which is too good for the competitors to keep up with. In politics, you get sued for winning by a landslide. And people say conspiracy theories aren't popular--ha, you're looking at one.

I have nothing further to add. This is a circus with its full compliment of freaks and side shows. There's nothing I can do about it except claim some asteroid as my own and make sure no one finds me.

 

[a_ump]

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is in my definition of greed. It doesn't matter if it is a cent or a trillion dollars. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't see anything to incriminate Intel let alone enough to levee a fine. Where's the evidence excluding all the hearsay?

course we don't we're not the ones doing the prosecution, everything your saying as well as everyone else here, is all matter of opinion based on the information provided to us. Though seeing as how they were found guilty in japan, wouldn't surprise me to be found doing the same thing else ware.

 

[soryuuha]

Takes long enough for this lawsuit to comes to the end..

 

[kaneda]

If AMD can't get me all 100,000 chips, I won't buy any. It costs me money to setup a separate SKU for an AMD and Intel version and adds several hundred hours of extra time on the support front to make sure techsupport and other supplies have everything they need to support two platforms.

It's kind of like Van Wyk (a trucking company) and other businesses that make large purchases: buying two products, in the end, is more of a PITA than it is worth. So Van Wyk buys 100 Volvos, a call center buys 100 identically spec'd PCs, a hospital buys a dozen of the same model network printers, etc.

The only way I would buy those 20,000 processors is if there is something distinct about them. For instance, if I have a lot of customers that want sub $1000 PCs and those 100,000 processors are for more than $1000 PCs, I might grab both to satisfy two different customers. However, if that entire order of 100,000 is for a single customer, I wouldn't even think about anyone that can't fulfill the order.



Intel doesn't have to say a thing. The market conditions prefer them. This "say" stuff is fabricated and/or stretched so the EU can get their money.

Even if they did say anything, it wouldn't pull customers in, it would push them away to AMD, Via, or IBM. That's what makes that whole fabricated story EU is pushing funny.

Again, you can't "force" customers to do anything. You can "encourage" them to conduct business elsewhere pretty easy though.


I would buy the 20,000 processors from AMD and tell anyone who was expecting those extra 80,000 processors that Intel backstabed us so we aren't able to fulfill the order as soon as expected. If that was a corporate customer, I would keep them informed on how much longer it will take for AMD to get the rest of the processors in.



AMD wouldn't see a dime of Intel's money if the EU wasn't greedy stickin their finger in jars it doesn't belong.

On the other hand, if EU bought up all AMD assets effectively making a monopoly then EU and USA would have a right to intervene and break the corporation up. It is necessary so that Intel, alone, does not control the global price for x86 processors.

The problem here is youre all assuming that AMD couldnt fufill a 100,000 cpu order. it was just an example. a limited example too. If there is any truth to this it had nothing to do with AMD's inability but more Intels ruthlessness( which had gotten them very far). you can say its hurting the market but intels chips arent that expensive, atleast not the ones which compete head to head with AMD's. I think another problem in this 'debate' is that many think intel were selling all nehalem cpu's, theyre talking about notebook chips, not uber expensive desktop ones. This entire thread has went overboard, mainly cos everything thinks something different is going on. maybe people should go hunt for the truth instead of arguing over hearsay and assumptions.

 

[mdm-adph]

If Intel pisses me off in anyway, they won't get a dime from me. Telling me how to conduct my business means they lost a customer. Intel isn't stupid, they know that's how it works. That's why I have a very hard time believing these claims have even a shred of truth. I want to see a letter Intel sent to an OEM that confirms what everyone is saying Intel is doing (that is, spells out these agreements saying buying someone elses product will result in an increase of our price). So far, all I've seen is hearsay and since when was hearsay admitted as evidence in court? Apparently it is in EU and Japan (other places too that are jumping on this hate-Intel/Seagate/Microsoft bandwagon). That's why my frustration is pointed directly at the EU. This (and most other modern anti-trust lawsuits) is a circus of greed.

Like I said before, you and I both know that's not how the business world works. You'd do what Intel told you to do, because you don't give a damn about AMD -- all you care about is making money. You'd make less money if you kept your scruples -- you'd make more if you told AMD to bugger off.

This isn't an insult -- it's just business. Businesses care about the bottom line, and that's it.

And you're never going to see evidence -- deals like this are made between executives on golf courses or over $10k lunches. There's never documentation. The best you can get is the sworn testimony of the vendors who Intel made these demands of, which I *hope* they had for these cases.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is in my definition of greed. It doesn't matter if it is a cent or a trillion dollars. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't see anything to incriminate Intel let alone enough to levee a fine. Where's the evidence excluding all the hearsay?

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure guilt is only absolutely necessary in criminal court -- civil court is different in most countries, as guilt isn't even necessary, just a "preponderance of evidence" or whatever the term is.

Sucks, but as they say, "them's the breaks."

What difference does it make anyway? Intel lost as expected. The only way that will change is if anti-trust laws are changed (written to be extremely specific in terms of what can be considered "anti-trust"). They won't because too many people profit from it. Effectively, it's bad to be the best at what you do. In baseball, you get slapped with asterisks in the Hall of Fame. In software, you get sued for including software that is required to obtain competitive software. In hardware, you get sued for making a product which is too good for the competitors to keep up with. In politics, you get sued for winning by a landslide. And people say conspiracy theories aren't popular--ha, you're looking at one.

I have nothing further to add. This is a circus with its full compliment of freaks and side shows. There's nothing I can do about it except claim some asteroid as my own and make sure no one finds me.

No, in baseball you get slapped with asterisks for cheating.

In software, you get sued for including software that you were too arrogant to bother licensing correctly.

(An asteroid? Or a mountain valley somewhere in the American Rockies, yes? I'll buy you a ticket. You and any other fellow objectivists that need a ride.)

The problem here is youre all assuming that AMD couldnt fufill a 100,000 cpu order. it was just an example. a limited example too. If there is any truth to this it had nothing to do with AMD's inability but more Intels ruthlessness( which had gotten them very far). you can say its hurting the market but intels chips arent that expensive, atleast not the ones which compete head to head with AMD's. I think another problem in this 'debate' is that many think intel were selling all nehalem cpu's, theyre talking about notebook chips, not uber expensive desktop ones. This entire thread has went overboard, mainly cos everything thinks something different is going on. maybe people should go hunt for the truth instead of arguing over hearsay and assumptions.

Yes, I'm assuming that -- I state that I'm assuming that for the point of argument. And I'm only basing this on what previous court cases (like the ones I linked from Japan) have said before me -- it's not my own personal opinion.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The EU suxors. America Rulz!!!1!

 

[Sugarush]

It's amazing how people go on and argue that Intel is innocent, because they just don't believe that Intel did it. - Well that sounds like a good argument and proof all in one, case closed, Intel didn't do anything illegal.

Others argue that Intel just offered rebates etc. and that it's legal and the EU should stop whining about the way the "free market" works. I guess these guys were there when Intel was just offering rebates and can testify that in court. Rebates are legal, but that's not what Intel is being accused of.

Oh and then there are the enlightened ones, who have seen the true (i.e. greedy and bureaucratic) face of the EU, which is just trying to milk some cash out of Intel from the land of the free and the brave.

 

[TheMailMan78]

It's amazing how people go on and argue that Intel is innocent, because they just don't believe that Intel did it. - Well that sounds like a good argument and proof all in one, case closed, Intel didn't do anything illegal.

Others argue that Intel just offered rebates etc. and that it's legal and the EU should stop whining about the way the "free market" works. I guess these guys were there when Intel was just offering rebates and can testify that in court. Rebates are legal, but that's not what Intel is being accused of.

Oh and then there are the enlightened ones, who have seen the true (i.e. greedy and bureaucratic) face of the EU, which is just trying to milk some cash out of Intel from the land of the free and the brave.

What exactly are you talking about?

 

[mdm-adph]

What exactly are you talking about?

It's a synopsis of one side in this thread, looks like.

 

[Matt Sakko]

It is a good thing that Intel have restricted AMD sales. It is for the good of the people. No-one should be exposed to that kind of shit.

 

[Sugarush]

It's a synopsis of one side in this thread, looks like.

That's exactly what it is.

 

[TheMailMan78]

It's a synopsis of one side in this thread, looks like.

It must be beyond my feeble comprehension. Damn you hippies and your long hair.

 

[mdm-adph]

It must be beyond my feeble comprehension. Damn you hippies and your long hair.

George Washington had long hair. He also smoked marijuana.

 

[TheMailMan78]

George Washington had long hair. He also smoked marijuana.

He also had wooden teeth and wore a wig.

 

[Paintface]

And the verdict is.... several billions of euros