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

[alexp999]

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

€1.06 Billion actually

EU Fines Intel a Record €1.06 Billion in Antitrust Case

 

[Wile E]

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.

No one should have to show proof of innocence. The burden or proof lays in the hands of the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof of Intel's guilt in this case?

And be honest, what bureaucratic body isn't greedy? They all are, including the EU.

 

[TheMailMan78]

No one should have to show proof of innocence. The burden or proof lays in the hands of the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof of Intel's guilt in this case?

And be honest, what bureaucratic body isn't greedy? They all are, including the EU.

In Soviet EU, you do not work for industry. Industry works for you.

 

[Easy Rhino]

In Soviet EU, you do not work for industry. Industry works for you.

lmao!

 

[mdm-adph]

No one should have to show proof of innocence. The burden or proof lays in the hands of the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof of Intel's guilt in this case?

You're thinking of criminal court. IANAL, but in civil court (fines, money, this kind of stuff), all you need is a "preponderance of evidence" -- all someone has to do is convince a judge (and/or jury) that Intel is "very likely" guilty.

At least, this is the way it is in most of the English-speaking world.

 

[Wile E]

You're thinking of criminal court. IANAL, but in civil court (fines, money, this kind of stuff), all you need is a "preponderance of evidence" -- all someone has to do is convince a judge (and/or jury) that Intel is "very likely" guilty.

Which is total and utter bullshit. This is not the way it should be at all.

 

[mdm-adph]

Which is total and utter bullshit. This is not the way it should be at all.

That's the way it's been for most of civilized history.

Do you think you have a better way?

 

[Wile E]

That's the way it's been for most of civilized history.

Do you think you have a better way?

Yes I do. Proof of guilt.