European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position

[Benetanegia]

Indeed, however, I can't name one US Anti-trust lawsuit that amounted to extortion like this. You have Microsoft getting pinned with anti-trust which basically just required a 3rd party to review their source code for anti-competitive behavior to Standard Oil which got broken into dozens of smaller, regional corporations. I can't name one time USA collected a fine under anti-trust law. Again, highly suspicious.

First of all, the EU can't do anything like that, because it's an american company and thus the EU can't intervene. And second those actions don't change anything for future actions and don't punish the actions nor pose an exemplary punishment.

And how many servers did those emails pass through? How many revisions have they undergone in the years since their authoring? Can they be validated or confirmed by other sources? I thought all the agreements Intel made were oral so why are there emails at all? Why is AMD still around if Intel is as guilty as they say they are?

Read above post. It's (not) funny that you are more inclined to believe, that it's more probable that the EU, HP, Dell, Lenovo, HTC... all of them lied, than admit that Intel did something wrong and was cought...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

First of all, the EU can't do anything like that, because it's an american company and thus the EU can't intervene. And second those actions don't change anything for future actions and don't punish the actions nor pose an exemplary punishment.

The EU could restrict how many units Intel sells for x number of years in EU member states. It not only reduces Intel's bottomline but gives AMD and Via an open door to walk through.

 

[Benetanegia]

It's asinine to believe this ruling wasn't made with greed at its core.

No, what it's stupid is to believe that so many companies that rely on Intel (HP, Dell...) would risk their bussiness relations worth much much more than $1 bllion to get... what exactly? A chunk of the billion the EU is taking from Intel and that is pocket change in comparison to their annual revenue? A reduction in taxes which is an even smaller ammount of money and definately smaller than the money they can get by being friendly with Intel? Enlighten us, because I think that no one except you was able to see what are those companies getting from this.

The EU could restrict how many units Intel sells for x number of years in EU member states. It not only reduces Intel's bottomline but gives AMD and Via an open door to walk through.

No they can't. A company can't be banned from selling their product unless there is a trully important reason to do that (health threat, patent isuues...). That definately goes against the free market and can't be done under those circumstances. AND again you forget that the EC is for the better of the consumer... taking Intel out of the european market is not better for the consumer.

 

[Sugarush]

Says the EU, South Korea, and that's about it. In both cases, the evidence is lacking.

You forgot Japan.

And yeah, the majority of the economically advanced countries found Intel guilty. So what...

By "evidence is lacking" I meant most of it is based on hearsay. There's a lot of hearsay but little of it provides grounds for a $1+ billion fine; hence, evidence of wrong-doing is lacking.

I've said this in a different thread before: Don't you think Intel would've gone for the "Hearsay" defence if it really had been the case?

First you were saying there is no proof, now that there is proof, you are arguing that it is made up.

And should Intel admit that they did it, you'd probably say: They're doing it to get over with the whole legal issue, not because they're guilty.

Indeed, however, I can't name one US Anti-trust lawsuit that amounted to extortion like this. You have Microsoft getting pinned with anti-trust which basically just required a 3rd party to review their source code for anti-competitive behavior to Standard Oil which got broken into dozens of smaller, regional corporations. I can't name one time USA collected a fine under anti-trust law. Again, highly suspicious.

You're arguing against the verdict because you don't agree with the penalty.

You should stick to the case itself.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No they can't. A company can't be banned from selling their product unless there is a trully important reason to do that (health threat, patent isuues...). That definately goes against the free market and can't be done under those circumstances. AND again you forget that the EC is for the better of the consumer... taking Intel out of the european market is not better for the consumer.

Not "selling," importing and producing. I thought anti-trust was a qualifier for "truly important."

EU isn't a free market. "Health threat," "patent issue" = regulation != free.

And Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic, of the people's will, nor a republic. "We fight for the consumer" is a good banner to stick on promo videos but, there's no fact to it. The money is going to "pay for member state dues." I highly doubt the member state dues will drop said amount because of this lawsuit. In fact, they'll probably go up for God knows what is on their agenda. They're all the same: crooked.


Whatever. This thread has been a repeat of the two or three that came before it. Nothing has changed, nothing will change.

 

[Benetanegia]

Not "selling," importing and producing. I thought anti-trust was a qualifier for "truly important."

It's the same, both actions prevent customers from being free to product election. As much as you think the EU has the power (or the intention) to regulate companies bussinesses at will, that's not the case. Sorry, but you are talking from total darkness on this issue. Basically and colloquially speaking, you have no clue about what you are talking.

EU isn't a free market. "Health threat," "patent issue" = regulation != free.

Wait... so the governments (creating laws) and the judges (applying them) shouldn't prevent a company from selling products that are a threat to the public health? Basically they should watch from the outside and let them kill loads of people, just so the utopian view of no intervention is fullfilled.

We should make patent infringement legal too?

Yeah I think we should do that. Maybe we can tell the police not to intervene until the crime has been made while we are at it. In the end how do you know he was going to kill that woman, he was just aiming a pistol at her, while shouting "I'll kill you, bitch!". But we know his real intentions? No. So?

But bottom line is that the EU market is much more free than the US market, simply because there are regulations (that are taken to it's maximum consequences) that prevent the abuse of bigger comapanies and that gives smaller competitors the ability to freely market their products. AMD was not free to market their products following the offer/demand rules, customers were not free to choose. It's an issue of numbers, you punish one missbehaving company to prevent it from spoiling the market for the others.

If parents don't put rules and tell their children "you have freedom to do what you want", the kids will never be free to do what they want, because the bigger one will always "enslave" the smaller ones. You need rules to prevent that from happening.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Will an EU decision supporter please answer my questions without any damn spin?

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1562152&postcount=67

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's the same, both actions prevent customers from being free to product election.

Anti-trust is, by nature, anti-consumer and pro-business. The competition which stems from pro-business is pro-consumer (reduced prices). Intel got their monopoly by consumers electing for their product. Anti-trust law uses that process against them saying too many people like your product and you used that popularity against someone else in an unlawful way.

As much as you think the EU has the power (or the intention) to regulate companies bussinesses at will, that's not the case. Sorry, but you are talking from total darkness on this issue. Basically and colloquially speaking, you have no clue about what you are talking.

If the EU doesn't have the power to restrict trade, it doesn't have the power to enforce a fine.

Wait... so the governments (creating laws) and the judges (applying them) shouldn't prevent a company from selling products that are a threat to the public health?

...

It's sementics. "Free market" by definition, means no regulation or intervention except in fraud and antitrust. As I said, I can't name one free market because all markets have regulations.

 

[mdm-adph]

Will an EU decision supporter please answer my questions without any damn spin?

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1562152&postcount=67

Well, I don't really count, but I'll try just for fun.

Jumping in the fray.......

1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?

2. Everyone names Intel as the aggressor. However OEMs benefited from these backdoor dealings also. Why didn't the EU go after them? Maybe because they needed some "hearsay" in court?
Think not? Then why didn't these OEMs go to the authorities back then?

3. Where is this fine going? Are members of the EUs population going to get a tax break? Is AMD going to get a little slice of the Intel pie for a few years to come? Hmmmm who gets this money? Not the people it allegedly effected thats for sure.

Really this is theft disguised as justice.

I'll try, just for fun:

1) This is civil court -- not criminal court. I imagine the laws are similiar in the EU as they are in the US -- the burden of proof is far different in civil court; you don't need to prove guilt to the same degree. Obviously, the judge in the case felt that the evidence found against Intel was sufficient.

Argue the merits of the case if you want, but don't say there isn't any "proof" -- it's unrealistic, and doesn't help either side of the case. EDIT: Just noticed, like btarunr said, you don't need an affidavit signed by a murderer to prove it happened.

2) Did OEM's really "benefit," especially since Intel, with their exclusive deals, could control the price without the influence of the free market?

Intel's processors were slower and hotter. I imagine just the extra cooling requirements needed to make their computers run cool and efficiently would've cut into the OEM profits a bit.

3) The fine is going where all government goes, in any government -- into the coffers. It will be used to pay for government programs and help the people. No, AMD is not going to get any of the money. Please don't act like you don't know how government works.

And "theft" is relative to who's doing the taking, and who's giving up. Wasn't Robin Hood technically a "thief," too?

 

[Benetanegia]

Anti-trust is, by nature, anti-consumer and pro-business. The competition which stems from pro-business is pro-consumer (reduced prices). Intel got their monopoly by consumers electing for their product. Anti-trust law uses that process against them saying too many people like your product and you used that popularity against someone else in an unlawful way.

It's debatable if Intel trully reached that market share by it's own merits, considering what they did to mantain it.

If the EU doesn't have the power to restrict trade, it doesn't have the power to enforce a fine.

The EU does have the power, should they want to break the laws that form the spinal cord of our government. Our law system is made so no party, no body, no person has power beyond what the law gave them. Can the US trully say the same. I doubt it.

It's sementics. "Free market" by definition, means no regulation or intervention except in fraud and antitrust. As I said, I can't name one free market because all markets have regulations.

You said it all. No need to argue. Except in fraud and antitrust, the EU doesn't intervene in companies bussiness at all.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Well, I don't really count, but I'll try just for fun.

I said a supporter of the decision. Not a member of the EU.

I'll try, just for fun:

1) This is civil court -- not criminal court. I imagine the laws are similiar in the EU as they are in the US -- the burden of proof is far different in civil court; you don't need to prove guilt to the same degree. Obviously, the judge in the case felt that the evidence found against Intel was sufficient.

Argue the merits of the case if you want, but don't say there isn't any "proof" -- it's unrealistic, and doesn't help either side of the case. EDIT: Just noticed, like btarunr said, you don't need an affidavit signed by a murderer to prove it happened.

2) Did OEM's really "benefit," especially since Intel, with their exclusive deals, could control the price without the influence of the free market?

Intel's processors were slower and hotter. I imagine just the extra cooling requirements needed to make their computers run cool and efficiently would've cut into the OEM profits a bit.

3) The fine is going where all government goes, in any government -- into the coffers. It will be used to pay for government programs and help the people. No, AMD is not going to get any of the money. Please don't act like you don't know how government works.

And "theft" is relative to who's doing the taking, and who's giving up. Wasn't Robin Hood technically a "thief," too?

1. Wheres the body should be the question then?

2. If they didn't benefit then a simple phone call to the FBI would have been a LOT cheaper. Prostitutes make money for a pimp do they not?

3. Here lies the problem. I do know how government works. This is why I call BS on the ruling.

4. Robin Hood isn't real.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You said it all. No need to argue. Except in fraud and antitrust, the EU doesn't intervene in companies bussiness at all.

A fine is intervention. I see no anti-trust here, again, the proof is AMD and Via (the only two competing x86 license holders) are alive and well. If there is grounds for anti-trust, there is no hiding it.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Jumping in the fray.......

1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?

2. Everyone names Intel as the aggressor. However OEMs benefited from these backdoor dealings also. Why didn't the EU go after them? Maybe because they needed some "hearsay" in court?
Think not? Then why didn't these OEMs go to the authorities back then?

3. Where is this fine going? Are members of the EUs population going to get a tax break? Is AMD going to get a little slice of the Intel pie for a few years to come? Hmmmm who gets this money? Not the people it allegedly effected thats for sure.

Really this is theft disguised as justice.

Not really an EU supported (the fine was absurdly large and unjust, but if they did wrong they did wrong) however:

1) If it was ALL based on hearsay the judge would have laughed the case out of court and Intel lawyers would have had a nice party - this did not happen. Thus they must have had some kind of proof, who knows where or what but it has to exist somewhere.

2) You are quite right in this statement - only thing i can suggest is that the OEMs benefitted or else intel would cut their dealings? maybe Who knows, we are mere mortals in this.

3)Tax break... EU population...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1) If it was ALL based on hearsay the judge would have laughed the case out of court and Intel lawyers would have had a nice party - this did not happen. Thus they must have had some kind of proof, who knows where or what but it has to exist somewhere.

Is this not the same judge that accused (and fined) Microsoft for bundling a browser and media player when almost all other OSs do the same? History repeats.

I'm just waiting for the EU to find out how much money the oil industry is sitting on. They'll milk that cash cow until it dies.


Another important question: Has the EU ever sided with, or lost to, the defendant of an anti-trust lawsuit?


Edit: I answer my own question: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18829279;jsessionid=O4BKCVQFWQ1PPQE1GHOSKHWATMY32JVN

In the third defeat this year -- and second in a week -- for the European Commission, a European court ruled that regulators erred in blocking Swiss-based Tetra Laval Group's attempt to create a drinks-packaging giant last year by buying French bottling company Sidel SA for $1.66 billion.

The Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance said the Commission provided insufficient evidence and overestimated the merger's anticompetitive effects.

On Tuesday, the same court annulled the Commission's decision to block a merger between two French electrical equipment makers. It also overturned the rejection in June of a merger of two British travel companies.

Each time, the court chastised the Commission's merger task force for poor casework.

Unsurpisingly, their defeats were with companies in EU member states. The bias is blindingly obvious.

 

[mdm-adph]

I said a supporter of the decision. Not a member of the EU.

1. Wheres the body should be the question then?

2. If they didn't benefit then a simple phone call to the FBI would have been a LOT cheaper. Prostitutes make money for a pimp do they not?

3. Here lies the problem. I do know how government works. This is why I call BS on the ruling.

4. Robin Hood isn't real.

1) Irrelevant. You don't even need a body in an actual murder trial.

2) They had responsibilities to their shareholders. You, of all people, should respect that.

3) If you do, then you should know where the money's going.

4) You're a time traveler, too?

 

[Benetanegia]

A fine is intervention. I see no anti-trust here, again, the proof is AMD and Via (the only two competing x86 license holders) are alive and well. If there is grounds for anti-trust, there is no hiding it.

The fact that you don't see anti-trust here doesn't make it any less REAL. You'll have to get over it some day.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Is this not the same judge that accused (and fined) Microsoft for bundling a browser and media player when almost all other OSs do the same? History repeats.

I'm just waiting for the EU to find out how much money the oil industry is sitting on. They'll milk that cash cow until it dies.

They would, the EU is stupidly difficult to control. Dozens of countries, all with very different laws with only one "governing" body i.e. the EU. It's just not right. The EU is a very grey subject for me, some of what they do is awesome other things they do is out right laughable. This is because one thing they do to France (for example) they have to do to every country. It's just silly.

As for oil, they will probably sue BP for pollution or something.

The money will most likely go to the poorer countries to kick start their economy.

damn you and your editing Ford:

Yes the EU is bias to the EU. Just like the USA is bias to the USA (they tax imports do they not, always encouraged to buy American) Each country looks after it's own.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

they tax imports do they not, always encouraged to buy American

I wish they would. Tariffs are damn near dead and it's killing the manufacturing segments of the country (e.g. Detroit at > 20% unemployment). The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.

 

[WhiteLotus]

I wish they would. Tariffs are damn near dead and it's killing the manufacturing segments of the country (e.g. Detroit at > 20% unemployment). The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.

Well i know they used to, still the concept applies. Each country looks after it's own.

 

[mdm-adph]

I wish they would. Tariffs are damn near dead and it's killing the manufacturing segments of the country (e.g. Detroit at > 20% unemployment). The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.

Why should they? The US economy depends on consumers buying cheap crap from China, so China will keep buying US debt.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Again, I hear "Lost My America" by I Mother Earth playing in my mind.


Anywho, I disagree with their decision (I see nothing that even warrants filing an anti-trust lawsuit, nevermind taking it to court) and their fine (completely unwarranted).

 

[Benetanegia]

The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.

Your bias and overall confusion within the boundaries of your own head is evident. Why in hell should the US government be involved in that at all?? You said earlier that the goverment shouldn't be involved in bussiness... I call BS on everything you said, you can't even make up your mind.

1. Wheres the body should be the question then?

2. If they didn't benefit then a simple phone call to the FBI would have been a LOT cheaper. Prostitutes make money for a pimp do they not?

3. Here lies the problem. I do know how government works. This is why I call BS on the ruling.

4. Robin Hood isn't real.

1. You don't need a body.

2. Yeah. Someone under coercion does benefit from doing what they are told to do. That doesn't mean their situation wouldn't be much better if coercion didn't exist to begin with. For example, someone with a gun on his head does benefit from giving all his money, he lives, but he would be much better if he could just go away with his money. The fact that Intel used market dominance as the weapon and not an actual weapon, changes nothing. Anti-trust laws were made exactly for that.

3. "Thinks the thief that everyone is of his own nature."

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Wow, the flames. :shadedshu

I said free market, by definition, means very limited government involvement. I said nothing on that subject of my personal beliefs.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Your bias and overall confusion within the boundaries of your own head is evident. Why in hell should the US government be involved in that at all?? You said earlier that the goverment shouldn't be involved in bussiness... I call BS on everything you said, you can't even make up your mind.



1. You don't need a body.

2. Yeah. Someone under coercion does benefit from doing what they are told to do. That doesn't mean their situation wouldn't be much better if coercion didn't exist to begin with. For example, someone with a gun on his head does benefit from giving all his money, he lives, but he would be much better if he could just go away with his money. The fact that Intel used market dominance as the weapon and not an actual weapon, changes nothing. Anti-trust laws were made exactly for that.

3. "Thinks the thief that everyone is of his own nature."

1. Yeah you need evidence of a murder. In this case all you have is a bunch of witnesses who stand to benefit if a "murderer" is fined. As you can see the point I am trying to make is there are no rules in love, war, or business. I do not know if Intel broke the law. All I am saying is this whole thing seems very fishy and the size of the fine and its circumstances solidify that. You guys are so thirsty to assume guilt on Intels part you do not question the accusations or its benefactors. This sounds to me like abuse of a judicial system for profit.

2. If they benefit then its not blackmail. Its a contract. OEM's made good money off of this. They are just as much at guilt. To use the murder analogy that you guys are so fond of the OEM's were accessories to the murder. Why are they not fined? What do they get out of this deal? If the EU wanted to they could charge the OEM's with industrial espionage. After all they knew it was against the law and they went along with it to get a good deal then flipped on Intel to get an ever better long term deal. They played Intel and the EU. WHY ARE THEY NOT CHARGED?! There is more proof of this than of any Intel wrong doing yet you still paint them as the victims.

3. I'm sorry but I have no clue what you mean by this.

 

[WarEagleAU]

You know Benet you need to back the hell off and quit getting so mad man, take it easy. Some people blindly follow things and companies (here here, I do with AMD Ill admit) but no reason to go on calling someone arrogant, stupid, etc (thats just a blanket statement, not saying you called someone stupid). Also, per your question, the US does have laws and measurements in place that prevent(s) one branch(es) from overstepping their authority. It is called the system of Checks and Balances. We can go on and on about this, but you get the idea. No government is perfect and we know this.

Fact is, Intel got caught by "means" and found guilty. OF course they are not happy with it and their supporters are not happy with it. Now I agree the huge fine is outrageous, but it was even more outrageous to prevent OEMs from buying or in delaying products that had AMD parts in them. That is the real crime. I don't know if that prevented AMD from gaining a bigger market share, but it did prevent others from trying them out. I also fault AMD for no advertising and not trying to one up Intel after they spanked them with the K8.