# Intel to be Slapped with Greatest Fine in EU History



## btarunr (May 2, 2009)

It is predicted that silicon giant Intel may face the greatest fine for its alleged anti-competitive practices, in a case heard in the European Union. Intel is currently being investigated for irregularities including encouraging hardware vendors not to use AMD products, and offering discounts. Legal analysts estimate the fine to be well over 1,000,000,000 EUR, over double that of what is heading Microsoft's way. In a statement to the New York Times, says Howard Cartlidge, head of the EU competition group at law firm Olswang in London, "I would be surprised if the fine isn't as high or higher than in the Microsoft case. Technology markets are where the European Commission has perceived particular problems due to dominant companies."

The ongoing trial in EU runs parallel to similar anti-competition trials in Japan and Korea, where Intel is found guilty. It is a joint effort between EU and United States Federal Trade Commission investogators. Despite previous convictions, Intel maintains that it has done nothing wrong and is confident of being found innocent. Says Intel spokesperson Robert Manetta, "Overall, Intel's conduct is lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers." Naturally, AMD begs to differ. Sources in AMD reveal that Intel conducted anti-competitive practices throughout, to maintain an 80-20 competition. The number took very little change even when AMD was at the peak of technology advancement over Intel.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## twilyth (May 2, 2009)

Excellent news!

And . . . I couldn't resist







"One . . . . Billlliiioonnn Euros"


----------



## farlex85 (May 2, 2009)

Down with the machine 

I wonder though, is providing discounts and encouraging vendors to use their product really illegal? Isn't that the name of the game?


----------



## LittleLizard (May 2, 2009)

oh crap, hope this wont give hard times to intel


----------



## shiny_red_cobra (May 2, 2009)

Providing discounts should be fine, any company can set any price it wants for its products. Of course, when there is competition, that price has to be around the market price or else they wouldn't sell many units. Again, entirely up to the company though. The big no-no is telling people not to use your competitor's products. I think this is pocket change for Intel though, they made billions with their Core 2 line of CPUs.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 2, 2009)

I hope intel don't stop making awesome chips...


----------



## farlex85 (May 2, 2009)

shiny_red_cobra said:


> Providing discounts should be fine, any company can set any price it wants for its products. Of course, when there is competition, that price has to be around the market price or else they wouldn't sell many units. Again, entirely up to the company though. The big no-no is telling people not to use your competitor's products. I think this is pocket change for Intel though, they made billions with their Core 2 line of CPUs.



I guess that's a no, but when promoting your own product aren't you essentially saying the same thing (don't buy them buy me)? Seems like semantics. Although I'm sure there's technicalities involved here we aren't privy to. Ultimately to me though vendors who accept intel's "bribe" (if that's what it was) should be more heavily penalized than intel. They (the vendors) would be the ones who created the monopoly, every company that is successful will strive to be a monopoly, tis the nature of business.


----------



## twilyth (May 2, 2009)

There's nothing wrong with giving someone a discount to buy your stuff.  The problem is when you make the discount conditional on NOT buying someone else's stuff.  Value added resellers are going to buy whatever their customers want.  Some will want Intel, some will want AMD.  By making the discount conditional, you prevent that reseller from buying ANY AMD chips - or just a token amount.  THAT is called 'restraint of trade.'


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 2, 2009)

twilyth said:


> There's nothing wrong with giving someone a discount to buy your stuff.  The problem is when you make the discount conditional on NOT buying someone else's stuff.  Value added resellers are going to buy whatever their customers want.  Some will want Intel, some will want AMD.  By making the discount conditional, you prevent that reseller from buying ANY AMD chips - or just a token amount.  THAT is called 'restraint of trade.'



If the rebates didn't work, intel would threaten cutting of chip supply completely. They all caved and became little bitches. They should all be ashamed.


----------



## Studabaker (May 2, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> I hope intel don't stop making awesome chips...



Oh yeah, this will surely kill Intel and all we'll be left with is AMD


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 2, 2009)

I don't know


----------



## DaedalusHelios (May 2, 2009)

Offering discounts is anti-competitive? 

Sounds like Intel didn't bribe the right people like EU companies do. Its a shame but US companies cannot openly bribe, despite it being openly accepted in the many European countries as a common practice to bribe in business. I have seen it first hand in the defense industry. Its pretty bad when US companies end up taking the high road when compared to their various counterparts overseas and missing out on some business. Intel didn't bribe, they offered discounts. Its weird to see the US companies doing the right thing and having money taken from them by a currently strapped for cash EU. 

Its fine to say don't use the competitor's offering, and saying our offerings are better etc. Why would a company say,"Please use our competitor's stuff instead". Its rediculous.


----------



## swaaye (May 2, 2009)

Intel has done shady stuff. 

They've been said to penalize companies for using non-Intel products. They'll give you a super awesome deal if you are Intel-only. Try to sell some AMD stuff and they kill off your deals. So, you end up screwed big time compared to your Intel-only competition. So you can see that with their seriously dominant position, they can pretty much control the market with such moves. Remember how long Dell was Intel-only? When they started selling AMD hardware it was a very big deal.

I don't know all of what Intel's accused of. I also doubt that AMD is all-perfect either. Big business isn't exactly 100% about the good of the market or the consumer and these companies really will do whatever they can get away with to make a buck.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I wonder though, is providing discounts and encouraging vendors to use their product really illegal? Isn't that the name of the game?


I don't see how it could be.  It's just another case of the EU looking to steal money from the USA without getting return-prosecuted for it.


----------



## soryuuha (May 2, 2009)

This is not super special awesome.


----------



## twilyth (May 2, 2009)

swaaye said:


> Intel has done shady stuff.
> 
> They've been said to penalize companies for using non-Intel products. They'll give you a super awesome deal if you are Intel-only. Try to sell some AMD stuff and they kill off your deals. So, you end up screwed big time compared to your Intel-only competition. So you can see that with their seriously dominant position, they can pretty much control the market with such moves. Remember how long Dell was Intel-only? When they started selling AMD hardware it was a very big deal.
> 
> I don't know all of what Intel's accused of. I also doubt that AMD is all-perfect either. Big business isn't exactly 100% about the good of the market or the consumer and these companies really will do whatever they can get away with to make a buck.



At least in theory, the whole idea of capitalism is to achieve efficiency through enlightened self-interest.  But for it to work, you have to have some obstacles to rampant greed - like the anti-trust laws.

All the intel fanboys can say that poor intel is getting the shaft, but when every regulatory body in the world is either investigating your business practices or has officially determined that you are a bully and a thief, then maybe there's something to it.  Although the big conspiracy theory is much more probable of course.


----------



## phanbuey (May 2, 2009)

I don't think its the "discounts" -- its the fact that vendors and parthers who bought BOTH AMD and Intel chips did not get "discounts"... only the people who sold Intel-Only products got "discounts".  And that is anti-competitive... 

"Yeah I'll give you a discount... oh wait, you sell AMD systems as well?  Erm.. No discounts (unless you stop selling AMD chips hint hint wink wink), sorry."

How is that any different from "I'll pay you not to sell the competitions product"?  Its just a round-about way of giving money to people to carry only one good.


----------



## Mussels (May 2, 2009)

I know what this is about. its pretty simple.

"If you buy from intel, we give you this CPU for $100"
"if you can prove you dont sell AMD either... we sell it to you for $75"

(prices are a made up example)


----------



## phanbuey (May 2, 2009)

its amazing how long ago this was, and how it just now is getting sorted out.


----------



## Blacksniper87 (May 2, 2009)

anti-trust laws what a load of bulls#$t EU is just doing some large scale revenue raising. I can imagin the headlines "Fighting the recession case by case". Greedy bastards trying to dig themselves out of the recession by taking a companies hard earned cash


----------



## tkpenalty (May 2, 2009)

Blacksniper87 said:


> anti-trust laws what a load of bulls#$t EU is just doing some large scale revenue raising. I can imagin the headlines "Fighting the recession case by case". Greedy bastards trying to dig themselves out of the recession by taking a companies hard earned cash



Actually when you observe what OEMs have been doing over the past decade, what Intel is accused of is feasible. 80-20 competition, DEFINATELY. Remember the Pentium 4 Days? During the netburst days Athlon had sheer technological dominance, and Intel's offerings seemed to be a joke. 

Enthusiasts and reviewers everywhere generally said that. However over in the OEM sector; what caters a majority of the users, oddly enough AMD offerings in OEM solutions such as Dell HP, etcera were almsot non-existent. 

Now why would OEMs give themselves a MAJOR pain in the backside in terms of customer service by using the slower, more expensive, and less reliable, power guzzling solution? 

Northwood to Prescott, we see CPUs that run bloody hot, yet give poor performance in contrast to AMD which had faster, cheaper and cooler solutions. Yet the illogical happened. 

A shady Pair gain deal would have made much sense, Intel gives discounts if they dont use AMD hardware, this would prove to Firms to be desirable as it would maximise profits while minimising manufacturing costs. Since Intel would have been to most OEMs with this deal, AMD's dominance would have been cancelled. Not saying that Intel did this but its plausible. 

The EU should pay AMD however, and not just pocket the money themselves. I agree that the EU is using rather unscrupulous means to get themselves out of the financial crisis, but the fact is that Intel is still guilty.


----------



## Flyordie (May 2, 2009)

Tk hit the nail on the head. GJ.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2009)

The Intel brand moves product just as the Microsoft brand moves product.  When people buy their stuff and never have problems, there's no reason to stop.  That's why it is so hard to reverse market dominence.  You have to convince potential customers, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your product is better than theirs.  Apple managed to do that to some extent with Mac and back in the Athlon 64 days, AMD manged to do that with AMD64.

The reason Dell didn't offer AMDs is because people didn't demand it and it also means issuing twice the number of SKUs for their product lines.  Buying one product enmasse is cheaper than buying duplicate products from multiple vendors.  The only reason why Dell changed their position is because people started demanding AMD products because they heard they were better.

It doesn't matter whether or not Intel is/was guilty of any anti-trust law.  Intel will have to pay if they want to continue to sell products in the EU.  The EU feels they have nothing to lose when they win (notice the wording there--EU can't lose).


----------



## alexp999 (May 2, 2009)

So thats how the EU is bailing the banks out.

Really does the EU have nothing better to do than fine everybody :shadedshu


----------



## btarunr (May 2, 2009)

EU isn't the only one with the contention that Intel is into market malpractices. Korea and Japan back EU's contention with their own trials. Besides EU is also using USFTC for the investigation. If proven guilty, a US federal agency will have backed EU. One can't corner and bitch at EU.


----------



## alexp999 (May 2, 2009)

I'm not saying Intel are not guilty, nor am I saying the EU arent doing the right thing. It just seems that every month, the EU are fining somebody, as if (like I said) they have nothing better to do.

To me its like, "change the record", oh look, EU fines again! :yawn: (Not at your news post  )


----------



## btarunr (May 2, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I'm not saying Intel are not guilty, nor am I saying the EU arent doing the right thing. It just seems that every month, the EU are fining somebody, as if (like I said) they have nothing better to do.



How do you punish a corporation as large as Intel for doing what it's accused of doing? Punishment is imminent if proven guilty. I find the 1b EUR fine reasonable.

Also, it is the judiciary's job to punish entities if found guilty of something. They really have nothing better to do with a guilty entity, it's their job. EU caught Intel pooch-scr****g with its markets and its companies, investigating, if found guilty, is punishing with the fine.


----------



## alexp999 (May 2, 2009)

I'm not saying its not just, it just makes me laugh when I see the EU fining everyone all the time. 

Makes me think they use it to fund the banks. (Just my own conspiracy theory)


----------



## kaneda (May 2, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I'm not saying its not just, it just makes me laugh when I see the EU fining everyone all the time.
> 
> Makes me think they use it to fund the banks. (Just my own conspiracy theory)



international banking conspiracy eh?


----------



## tkpenalty (May 2, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I'm not saying its not just, it just makes me laugh when I see the EU fining everyone all the time.
> 
> Makes me think they use it to fund the banks. (Just my own conspiracy theory)



Its not a conspiracy because it is a valid way to make money. They're just policing the market, thats all. Intel is at court for market malpractises. As I said even though the EU is being a bit greedy, it doesn't render Intel Innocent.


----------



## alexp999 (May 2, 2009)

And like I said my comments arent about the article in particular, and whether or not Intel is guilty, just about the fact that the EU seems to do nothing but fine people.


----------



## mrhuggles (May 2, 2009)

reminds me of the lik-sang thing a little bit, arrg darn EU legal system ruining things for the rest of us lol


----------



## Gam'ster (May 2, 2009)

Meh prob just means we pay more for crap down the road....Also alex have a look at this watch it, its along the lines of what your saying.


----------



## twilyth (May 2, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> Its not a conspiracy because it is a valid way to make money. They're just policing the market, thats all. Intel is at court for market malpractises. As I said even though the EU is being a bit greedy, it doesn't render Intel Innocent.



Shit yeah!  But at the same time it kinda sucks - and I have no love for Intel.

Hell, most of the towns around here would go bankrupt were it not for the traffic fines they hand out every month.  You can always tell when they're at the end of their fiscal month and they haven't made their quotas - you can't spit without hitting a cop car.  And they'll fine you for any funky shit they can find or make up - farting without signaling, intoxicated parking, etc.

If the EU was making shit up just so they could sue companies, that would be unfair.  But if they're really breaking the law and they happen to get a nice chunk of change - where's the harm?

Intentional acts like collusion usually require both compensatory damages and punitive damages.  Comps are for actual damage caused by the defendant.  But punitive is based on their ability to pay.  The idea is you want to charge them enough so that it hurts.  I'd bet that's why the number is so high.  It has to be for Intel to even notice it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2009)

Anti-trust used to be when company A buys up competitor B so competitor B is no longer a competitor (e.g. Carnegie Steel).  Now, they bend it to their will which is why they rarely end up in favor of the defendant.

Again, Intel just better be saving up that $1 billion Euros.  They are more likely to win the lottery than win an anti-trust lawsuit.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 2, 2009)

I wonder who in the EU takes control of the money - and why I haven't seen any evidence of all the money being used to build things. Someone is getting very rich quick i believe.


----------



## TreadR (May 2, 2009)

LOLz at all the people bashing EU... it's not only an EU issue... Intel has anti-trust law suites also in ASIA and as this article states USA's FTC is also involved.

So cut the crap with the EU blaming and move along!
We all know that if you won't play Intel's way, you'll pay. I know... it rhymes!

What's that? Can't buy Atoms without chipsets? :shadedshu
There!... one example of anti-competitive practices against NV's ION platform which doesn't involve AMD.


----------



## Binge (May 2, 2009)

If the post above has any validity than IE packaged with Windows is totally reason to sue... How stupid.  I'd like a better understanding of how Intel is monopolizing.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (May 2, 2009)

I don't understand why the validity of this is so hard for people here to understand???


----------



## Mussels (May 2, 2009)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> I don't understand why the validity of this is so hard for people here to understand???



oh people beleive intel are guilty. they just dont like the fact that the EU is getting this money all to themselves.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 2, 2009)

The dell not selling AMD really doesnt fall to customers not demanding it. At one point, they were on HSN and such offering AMD cpus, but they said they werent available from the website, they were prebuilt. This was before they announced they were going to be offering AMD Cpus. Also, if I remember correctly, when AMD said hey, we will offer AMD cpus, wasnt this about the time C2D came out? Shady indeed.

Also, Dell does most of their sales with businesses and government, which also may have played a part.


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 2, 2009)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> I don't understand why the validity of this is so hard for people here to understand???



I think we have lots of youngins that haven't been around/aware to witness the BS intel has done over the years. 

This is only about the money end. Intel has done incredibly evil marketing forever. Toms, Anand, quite a few mags, etc have historically had ridiculously positive reviews for intel. Even with the pentium 4! They even owned a synthetic benchmark (sysmark I think). Back in the athlon XP and 64 days it showed AMD chips to be like 20% slower in everything. No one knew this, but the address they gave for the company was.... intel's.

There's so much shit they've done it's asinine. It would take pages to list them all and they can be proven (literal tons of forum posts over this).


----------



## w00t (May 2, 2009)

Excellent. Intel are shady, and had this coming.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I'm not saying its not just, it just makes me laugh when I see the EU fining everyone all the time.
> 
> Makes me think they use it to fund the banks. (Just my own conspiracy theory)



Over the past few years the EU has become a joke in most other countries.  US Companies laugh at the EU's stupid antics.  The EU has become full of itself, they won't see any money from Microsoft and they won't see any money from Intel either.  Their antics have degraded themselves so low that most international companies don't even recognize them as a governing body.

They fine the biggest companies for things that only the EU claim are illegal, while leaving the "small" companies unpunished for doing the exact same things.  They impose insane fines and requirements on the biggest companies, and never enforce the same requirements on the "small" companies.  Once they got to the point where they started telling Microsoft what it could and couln't name it's products, Microsoft basically laughed at them and told them to fuck off.  Intel will most likely do the same with this judgement as well.

I'm starting to think the EU is simply fining the biggest companies it can to try and generate money for their failing economy...


----------



## b1lk1 (May 2, 2009)

Intel was only offering discounts if people did not use AMD products.  If they had just offered the discounts no matter what their vendors used then they would not have got into trouble.  Intel deserves this and the resulting fines.  This will not put them out of business, it will just force them to rely on their products selling themselves instead of forcing people to buy them.


----------



## alexp999 (May 2, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Over the past few years the EU has become a joke in most other countries.  US Companies laugh at the EU's stupid antics.  The EU has become full of itself, they won't see any money from Microsoft and they won't see any money from Intel either.  Their antics have degraded themselves so low that most international companies don't even recognize them as a coverning body.
> 
> They fine the biggest companies for things that only the EU claim are illegal, while leaving the "small" companies unpunished for doing the exact same things.  The impose insane fines and requirements on the biggest companies, and never enforce the same requirements on the "small" companies.  Once they got to the point where they started telling Microsoft what it could and couln't name it's products, Microsoft basically laughed at them and told them to fuck off.  Intel will most likely do the same with this judgement as well.
> 
> I'm starting to think the EU is simply fining the biggest companies it can to try and generate money for their failing economy...



Finally someone understands what I was trying to say. 

Though I agree Intel needs to get punished in this instance, I'm just sick of hearing the EU has fined some big corp *AGAIN!*


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 2, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm starting to think the EU is simply fining the biggest companies it can to try and generate money for their failing economy...



They would have to make the fines a lot bigger than that then wont they.


Besides i want to know just who in Brussels decided that they are going to sue Intel. Wonder if it's an AMD fanboi who also just happens to hate microsoft...


----------



## btarunr (May 2, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> They fine the biggest companies for things that only the EU claim are illegal, while leaving the "small" companies unpunished for doing the exact same things.



In this particular case, they're not the only ones to claim Intel to be into illegal activities. Also we don't have anything to suggest smaller companies are getting away unpunished, or otherwise. It's just that Microsoft and Intel are two high-profile entities, and when they land in soup, they get all the media-coverage.

When a Hollywood celebrity gets busted for drunk-driving, it's all over the news and the internet. But when you and I get busted for the same, we probably won't make it to the news, unless we did something nasty.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 2, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Intel is currently being investigated for irregularities including encouraging hardware vendors not to use AMD products, and offering discounts.



I am so glad I do not live in the EU. Not that the US is much better these days. I mean what is Intel supposed to do? Go to a vender and say how awesome AMD products are and tell them they should buy AMD instead? And then sell their Intel products for a much higher price? Why even bother doing business then? And the EU fines these companies way to much. If you are a successful company you might as well just give all your profits away to the EU in advance and close up shop. I am sure that will be great for the economy... And it is Orwellian that it is being called "anti-competitive" when what Intel is doing is EXACTLY competitive.


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 2, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> I am so glad I do not live in the EU. Not that the US is much better these days. I mean what is Intel supposed to do? Go to a vender and say how awesome AMD products are and tell them they should buy AMD instead? And then sell their Intel products for a much higher price? Why even bother doing business then? And the EU fines these companies way to much. If you are a successful company you might as well just give all your profits away to the EU in advance and close up shop. I am sure that will be great for the economy... And it is Orwellian that it is being called "anti-competitive" when what Intel is doing is EXACTLY competitive.



*sighs*    I don't think anyone knows how to read. Go read japan's anti-trust suit and AMD's case against them.

Let me put it like this: You're a car dealer. You want to have nissans and GM cars on your lot. You try to buy nissans, then GM call you up. They tell you if you buy more than 10% nissan, not only will they charge high prices for their cars, they may just cut  your supply completely, ruining your business.

Intel has done this to every major OEM. Some of them couldn't even sell AMD in fear of losing all profit.

Intel should be fined billions, but the money should go to AMD.


----------



## a111087 (May 2, 2009)

i think Intel could pay that much and will be completely fine


----------



## Morgoth (May 2, 2009)

intel dont pay to eu!


----------



## btarunr (May 2, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> *sighs*    I don't think anyone knows how to read.



No arguments please. Knowing how to read is one thing, having the patience to read an entire ~50 post thread is another. Anyway, that's out of topic.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 2, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> *sighs*    I don't think anyone knows how to read. Go read japan's anti-trust suit and AMD's case against them.
> 
> Let me put it like this: You're a car dealer. You want to have nissans and GM cars on your lot. You try to buy nissans, then GM call you up. They tell you if you buy more than 10% nissan, not only will they charge high prices for their cars, they may just cut  your supply completely, ruining your business.



i dont see anything wrong with this scenario......

edit: and i would like to point out that this action by the EU has nothing to do with being "fair" in the business world. it has to do with the EU putting billions of dollars into what they call "Silicon Saxony" in Germany where there are 3 major chip manufacturers, AMD being one of them. These manufacturers who fabricate the AMD chips cant get any business now and that means AMD can't make a profit on their new "Asset Light" strategy. So the EU is gonna fine the crap outta Intel. You can google all of this information if you want.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (May 2, 2009)

a111087 said:


> i think Intel could pay that much and will be completely fine



I agree.


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 2, 2009)

I give up. I guess people love monopolies. That always leads to advancement and better prices for the consumers.  

Removing competition by force is neither legal nor ethical. It ruins industry and freedom of choice in products.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 2, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> I give up. I guess people love monopolies. That always leads to advancement and better prices for the consumers.
> 
> Removing competition by force is neither legal nor ethical. It ruins industry and freedom of choice in products.



Intel is not removing its competition by force. It is removing it through better business practices and savvy business deals. What is not ethical is a giant arm of the government pushing around a business so that the govt can recoup part of its "investment." Let's face it, AMD would not be in this situation if it had a much better business model and competent people running the company.


----------



## trt740 (May 2, 2009)

Ouch , but thats not all that much to intel.


----------



## erocker (May 2, 2009)

I'd rather see Intel pull out of the EU than pay them.  Just another form of government looking for money.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 2, 2009)

well what you can do is buy more AMD products...


----------



## DrPepper (May 2, 2009)

I agree with easyrhino. If AMD did similar deals they wouldn't be in such a dire position. Also its hard for intel not to monopolise the cpu industry when it own x86 and giving it to other companies will risk their future.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2009)

Really, in my eyes, Intel has done nothing wrong.  Business offer exclusivity discounts all the time, it is just a way of modern business.  When you deal with suppliers, they all are going to give you discounts if you deal with them only and not their competitors.

Intel did not force anyone to not use AMD, they simply gave discounts to those how used only Intel.  Nothing was stopping AMD from making the same offers, and I highly doubt they didn't make the same types of deals.  The companies that accepted Intel's deal could have easily said no and used both companies.

This is really one of those deals where every other governing body accepts this practice because there is nothing wrong with it in the business world, it is a part of competition, but the EU suddenly makes it illegal and picks the biggest company it can to hand down a huge fine.



WhiteLotus said:


> They would have to make the fines a lot bigger than that then wont they.



$1 Billion is a huge amount of money, a nice injection into a failing economy.


----------



## DaMulta (May 2, 2009)

I don't see why AMD wouldn't get any of this money seeing that they were the company affected. I guess they can turn around and sue them after a win?


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 2, 2009)

Everyone needs to save every penny right now, so I doubt intel will go down without a big fight...


----------



## DrPepper (May 2, 2009)

DaMulta said:


> I don't see why AMD wouldn't get any of this money seeing that they were the company affected. I guess they can turn around and sue them after a win?



Wouldn't via or ibm be entitled ?


----------



## moto666 (May 2, 2009)

"Intel did not force anyone to not use AMD, they simply gave discounts to those how used only Intel. Nothing was stopping AMD from making the same offers, and I highly doubt they didn't make the same types of deals. The companies that accepted Intel's deal could have easily said no and used both companies."

Yeah You Sure???
Like You was there or something...


----------



## hat (May 2, 2009)

Sigh... this isn't even news anymore. The court has become grounds for pissing contests, let's see who can sucessfully sue the most.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (May 2, 2009)

DaMulta said:


> I don't see why AMD wouldn't get any of this money seeing that they were the company affected. I guess they can turn around and sue them after a win?



Both AMD and intel do not deserve free money. I would like to see the EU quit playing around in the market like its an ethical body of government when we all know it does not have our best interests in mind with these fees.


----------



## Exceededgoku (May 2, 2009)

Where does the money go to?! I hope to god that at least some of it goes AMDs way, otherwise justice has been perverted by the EU once again. Seriously fed up of the EU just fining corporations in todays economic environment... And I'm glad as hell that most people in the UK don't take the EU as a real entity :lol:


----------



## Bl4ck (May 2, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Really, in my eyes, Intel has done nothing wrong.  Business offer exclusivity discounts all the time, it is just a way of modern business.  When you deal with suppliers, they all are going to give you discounts if you deal with them only and not their competitors.
> 
> Intel did not force anyone to not use AMD, they simply gave discounts to those how used only Intel.  Nothing was stopping AMD from making the same offers, and I highly doubt they didn't make the same types of deals.  The companies that accepted Intel's deal could have easily said no and used both companies.
> 
> ...



well my point of view isn't .  Intel vs. Nvidia,  Intel vs. AMD ,  (first ION platform and the threat's that Intel isn't going to sell Atom's without their old 945 chipset,  second creating Foundry by AMD and licensing X86 to Foundry by AMD , also worth to mention the Nvidia vs. intel licencse for the Nehalem mainboard chipsets.    Threats like these are not the "free market" standards , also giving "bribes" to political agendas or any kind of governments (just like intel did) is also a bribe and not "incentive" . As far as i know the intel EU trial started in year 2000 or so , back then in 2001 if i recall correctly Intel was found guilty in Asia markets for the same illegal practices. You know if someone is giving "free" software or another "free stuff" ect. it is still a bribe.  Back then AMD had better hardware ,  AMD's Athlon XP's where better then Inferior Pentium 4. Just check in google for Intel's illegal business procedures.


----------



## Morgoth (May 2, 2009)

erocker said:


> I'd rather see Intel pull out of the EU than pay them.  Just another form of government looking for money.



agreed with that allready got my Intel cpu  
if intel pays it it does not go to amd it stays in the EU


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2009)

moto666 said:


> Yeah You Sure???
> Like You was there or something...



If you read the article, or any others about the subject, you can be as sure as I am.  The people in this thread seem to want to say Intel was forcing companies to use only Intel products, but the articles do not even imply that.  Intel was giving heavy discounts to companies to use only Intel products, but they never forced them to do it.  The companies could have easily said no to Intel and used products from other companies, Dell did it.



Bl4ck said:


> well my point of view isn't .  Intel vs. Nvidia,  Intel vs. AMD ,  (first ION platform and the threat's that Intel isn't going to sell Atom's without their old 945 chipset,  second creating Foundry by AMD and licensing X86 to Foundry by AMD , also worth to mention the Nvidia vs. intel licencse for the Nehalem mainboard chipsets.    Threats like these are not the "free market" standards , also giving "bribes" to political agendas or any kind of governments (just like intel did) is also a bribe and not "incentive" . As far as i know the intel EU trial started in year 2000 or so , back then in 2001 if i recall correctly Intel was found guilty in Asia markets for the same illegal practices. You know if someone is giving "free" software or another "free stuff" ect. it is still a bribe.  Back then AMD had better hardware ,  AMD's Athlon XP's where better then Inferior Pentium 4. Just check in google for Intel's illegal business procedures.



Unfortunately, none of those "shady" dealings had anything to do with this.

The Nehalem chipset licensing issue was that nVidia didn't want to pay Intel to license the QPI tech, they want Intel to give it to them and let them use it for free.  By the time nVidia finally realized Intel wasn't going to do that(and why would they), it was already too late for nVidia.  The only person to blame there is nVidia.

Bribing political bodies it a bold claim, where are you getting this information from?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 2, 2009)

I honestly dont care if Intel is in the wrong or in the right, if the companies that were hurt by Intel's actions aren't gonna get any(IMHO,they should get ALL of it) of the money, this is not right or justified.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 2, 2009)

I don't see why everyone is bashing the EU here. The news post states that Intel have also been found guilty of doing this in Korea and there is also a suit against them in Japan. The "absurd" fine of $1Billion is inflated simply because the EU is... well... much much much BIGGER, and therefore effects more companies, business and consumers than in Korea and Japan.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 2, 2009)

Notice the money goes to the EU and not AMD... the EU is a bunch of fascists who make up laws to steal money from businesses. Please, everyone read up on Silicon Saxony and how it is failing big time and the EU has billions invested in it. AMD is one of the companies operating there and if AMD dies, which most speculators believe will happen in some way by 2011, then the EU will have lost billions in "investments." This is why you do not want your government to ever use private tax payer money to invest in companies.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 2, 2009)

I'm sorry but what? If it was failing so much why does the EU not just conjure up some money from nowhere and put a "Bail-out" label on it and just give it to them. Which the USA did when the "big three" all claimed to be failing. Hmm i wonder...


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 3, 2009)

Once again, there is the EU trying to "tax" a company to help cover up the huge financial mess they have got themselves into. How politically convenient. And what a nice way to "cover the hole" of the whopping salaries and expense accounts at the EU parliament.


----------



## TreadR (May 3, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> If you read the article[...] Dell did it.


Shows how less you know about commerce.

If 9 out of 10 companies buy a product at price and get a discount of 20% for not acquiring the competitor's product as well, and that remaining company gets 0% discount, just the batch price because it wants to serve its clients every option that there is... how do you think it would be able survive? The other 9 co. can just add a 19% profit and that would mean a clear loss for that single one company.

In this situation, and in my view... that's far from fair business!





newtekie1 said:


> The Nehalem chipset licensing issue was that nVidia didn't want to pay Intel to license the QPI tech, they want Intel to give it to them and let them use it for free.


No, you're misinformed! AFAIK it was QPI for NF200less-SLI-enabled Intel boards! This way, the mobo manufacturers could choose if they want SLI for 5$ through a soft mod, no SLI at all or the alternative, a 50$ to 100$ NF200 version (price depending on manufacturer) that would enable SLI. That was the deal... but once Intel got their 5$ mod, NV got nothing!




Easy Rhino said:


> AMD dies, which most speculators believe will happen in some way by 2011


Don't be one of those sorry kids that eats this kind of BS... it's really sad when people do that!
I've heard a enough that AMD dies, goes bankrupt, gets bought, goes tits-up or gets blown up because of financial problems in the last 8 or so years... so far, they are pushing products that a lot of us can afford and are glad it's still here to make a difference.

What happens with the money remains to be seen... so far people can speculate all they want about EU... the show's not over!


----------



## ghost101 (May 3, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> So thats how the EU is bailing the banks out.



If only 1bn EUR was anywhere near enough the the world would be so much better. When we live in an environment where the word trillion is used often, you have to appreciate how 1bn is no where near enough to bail out banks.



> Really does the EU have nothing better to do than fine everybody :shadedshu



The European Competition Commission has nothing other than to investigate companies and anticompetitive behaviour. Its why it was created.


----------



## ghost101 (May 3, 2009)

Morgoth said:


> intel dont pay to eu!



And both the japanese and korean regulators? What about the FTC? Intel still need to sell their products. Without europe, the US and Japan they pretty much alienate most of the world's wealth.


----------



## Morgoth (May 3, 2009)

ghost101 said:


> And both the japanese and korean regulators? What about the FTC? Intel still need to sell their products. Without europe, the US and Japan they pretty much alienate most of the world's wealth.



use multi quote idiot, actealy i dont care 
i can still order from us stores


----------



## e6600 (May 3, 2009)

ghost101 said:


> If only 1bn EUR was anywhere near enough the the world would be so much better. When we live in an environment where the word trillion is used often, you have to appreciate how 1bn is no where near enough to bail out banks.
> 
> 
> 
> The European Competition Commission has nothing other than to investigate companies and anticompetitive behaviour. Its why it was created.



anti competitive?
if anything the EU promotes competition... why do you think they are trying to stop an intel monopoly?

without amd, intel would be sitting on $500 multi core P4's at 6ghz LOL


----------



## newtekie1 (May 3, 2009)

TreadR said:


> Shows how less you know about commerce.
> 
> If 9 out of 10 companies buy a product at price and get a discount of 20% for not acquiring the competitor's product as well, and that remaining company gets 0% discount, just the batch price because it wants to serve its clients every option that there is... how do you think it would be able survive? The other 9 co. can just add a 19% profit and that would mean a clear loss for that single one company.
> 
> In this situation, and in my view... that's far from fair business!



It is perfectly fair because if Company A is offering a discount, then there is nothing stopping Company B from offering a discount either.  Again, I see this in my families business all the time, our suppliers constnatly offer us discounts as long as we buy from them only, we don't so we don't get the discounts, but that doesn't mean the offers disappear.

Your ideas are flawed in that you don't take into account the fact that Intel had competition.  It isn't an issue of if they didn't take the discount, then they would have to sell Intel products with lower profits.  They just better be buying AMD products at competitive prices to what Intel's products with the discount.  It is competition, if AMD wants to compete, they need to offer their products to the companies at competitive prices.




TreadR said:


> No, you're misinformed! AFAIK it was QPI for NF200less-SLI-enabled Intel boards! This way, the mobo manufacturers could choose if they want SLI for 5$ through a soft mod, no SLI at all or the alternative, a 50$ to 100$ NF200 version (price depending on manufacturer) that would enable SLI. That was the deal... but once Intel got their 5$ mod, NV got nothing!



Actually, you are misinformed.  The NF200 thing didn't come up till about half way through the ordeal.  

At first, nVidia wanted to make true chipsets for the i7.  However, to do that they need to use QPI, which they need to license from Intel.  NVidia wanted Intel to allow them to use QPI for free, Intel would have no part of that. And Intel is in the right here, they spent a huge amount to develope it, they aren't going to give it away for use for free, especially not to a company just so they can develope a competing product.  By the time nVidia finally caved and agreed to pay licensing fees for QPI it was too late for them to get a chipset out before launch, in fact we still haven't seen a chipset from them.

Of course this would have screwed nVidia, because it would mean that they would not have an SLi solution out for the i7 for a large amount of time, and poeple would be using Crossfire exclusively.  So nVidia's next big idea was to simply have motherboard manufacturers put NF200 chips on any i7 motherboard that they wanted to support SLi.  The backfired because the manufacturers told nVidia they wouldn't have enough time to develope boards like this in time for the i7 launch, and they also told nVidia they would likely not produce many boards with the NF200 chip due to the extra cost.

This is finally when nVidia gave up on having one of their chips on every SLi board, and finally just allowed manufacturers to qualify the board for SLi by simply paying a small licensing fee and sending nVidia samples for SLi qualification.


----------



## twilyth (May 3, 2009)

Here is the best explanation I could find of when exclusive dealing agreements are illegal.



> Exclusive Dealing Agreements
> 
> Exclusive dealing agreements are a form of second-degree price discrimination, similar to requirements tie-in sales. In exclusive dealing agreements, a buyer agrees to purchase all of its requirements for some product or service from one suppliers. For instance, restaurant and
> fast food franchises often agree to purchase all of their supplies (cups, plates, food ingredients, etc.) from the parent company.
> ...


----------



## mechtech (May 3, 2009)

even if it is over 1 Billion Euros, Intel could probly cut a cheque for that lol, more important than the fine will be the verdict, GUILTY or innocent.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 3, 2009)

Thank you twilyth, the bold statement is exactly the reason I have issue with this ruling against Intel(and the rulings against Microsoft).

You should not be punished, and not have to follow special rules, simply because you are a bigger company.  The same rules should apply to all companies, large or small.  Otherwise, who is to decided what company is big enough to be considered big? The governing bodies are purposely not establishing guidelines on what companies are big, and which aren't.  So they can extract as much free money out of as many companies as possible.

Laws and rules like this need to be an all or none issue.  Either enforce the rules for all companies, or none.  You don't get to selectively choose which companies you will suddenly start enforcing the rules for.  You can suddenly decide you will enforce the rule for a single company just so you can get some money out of them.


----------



## tkpenalty (May 3, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Thank you twilyth, the bold statement is exactly the reason I have issue with this ruling against Intel(and the rulings against Microsoft).
> 
> You should not be punished, and not have to follow special rules, simply because you are a bigger company.  The same rules should apply to all companies, large or small.  Otherwise, who is to decided what company is big enough to be considered big? The governing bodies are purposely not establishing guidelines on what companies are big, and which aren't.  So they can extract as much free money out of as many companies as possible.
> 
> Laws and rules like this need to be an all or none issue.  Either enforce the rules for all companies, or none.  You don't get to selectively choose which companies you will suddenly start enforcing the rules for.  You can suddenly decide you will enforce the rule for a single company just so you can get some money out of them.



A company is deemed big when they dominate the market that they're in. In this case these business deals only lose their legality when they become anti-competetive, making it impossible for the competitor in the same sector to sell their goods.  Remember, economies these days are mostly mixed markets, and all or none solutions never work (True Capitalism/True Socailism), and same goes for this law.

Is it fair that, none of the OEMs will use Company A's products, because the dominating Company X decided to pay these OEMs not to use them? Thats whats going on. Thats just abusing your market position, its like a person paying people to take up places in a competition with limited places so that you cant participate, because you'd be a threat to their victory.


----------



## buggalugs (May 3, 2009)

I dont doubt intel have done this because it seems like everyone in the IT industry is doing it. Its not just the EU prosecuting either, there have been many cases in the US, Korea, Taiwan ,Japan and various countries, but mainly countries that produce technology.

 AMD and Nvidia were busted for price fixing, The memory makers in Korea were busted , the LCD makers in Taiwan. They all seem to be sheisters and they are all involved to some degree.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 3, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> Is it fair that, none of the OEMs will use Company A's products, because the dominating Company X decided to pay these OEMs not to use them? Thats whats going on. Thats just abusing your market position, its like a person paying people to take up places in a competition with limited places so that you cant participate, because you'd be a threat to their victory.



Yes, it is fair, because there is nothing stopping Company A from offering the same deals as Company X.  It isn't Company X's fault that Company A can't/won't be competitive.


----------



## Mussels (May 3, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, it is fair, because there is nothing stopping Company A from offering the same deals as Company X.  It isn't Company X's fault that Company A can't/won't be competitive.



theres a difference between offering a lower/more competetive price, and only offering that lower price to people who dont sell any competing products.


----------



## Haytch (May 3, 2009)

I wish i could be in that hearing.

I really dont think any of us know exactly what went on.  Surely the evidence we have gathered helps sway our opinions but we should never forget that the masses are indeed sheep.

I have seen too many times, a poor quality, stupid product mass produced and sold, and dominate market share. Probably as many times as i have seen shady business actions.

I think i have heard too many Binderberg conspiracy theories and just felt like adding that the money ending up in the banks hands is what the final outcome will be.  U.S is a dry-well, lets drain everything via E.U.  That being said, it wont matter if Intel did or didnt when 3/4 of the worlds population is DEAD. . .    ( Dont mind me, i just thought i'll spin this off until we get an outcome. )

. . .  If i was Intel, i would have made sure AMD was dead by now and have total Monopoly in the industry, killing any uprising competition YEARS ago.  This would lead to hostile takeovers of everything remotely related.  Anyone that opposes, will have no technology.  - - Lucky hey!


----------



## tkpenalty (May 3, 2009)

Haytch said:


> I have seen too many times, a poor quality, stupid product mass produced and sold, and dominate market share. Probably as many times as i have seen shady business actions



mmm Gibson guitars?  I hope you mean that.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 3, 2009)

smack that intel , every one notice this , no fair challenge , now time kick ass


----------



## kaneda (May 3, 2009)

btarunr said:


> EU isn't the only one with the contention that Intel is into market malpractices. Korea and Japan back EU's contention with their own trials. Besides EU is also using USFTC for the investigation. If proven guilty, a US federal agency will have backed EU. One can't corner and bitch at EU.



People like to blame europe for everything.  Honestly we dont take offense at it anymore.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 3, 2009)

kaneda said:


> People like to blame europe for everything.  Honestly we dont take offense at it anymore.



they sure do :shadedshu kinda like water off a ducks back now


----------



## Mussels (May 3, 2009)

kaneda said:


> People like to blame europe for everything.  Honestly we dont take offense at it anymore.



canada, new zealand and scotland are previous countries who have taken the position of "blame them for everything"

I suggest we use the french next.


----------



## kaneda (May 3, 2009)

Mussels said:


> canada, new zealand and scotland are previous countries who have taken the position of "blame them for everything"
> 
> I suggest we use the french next.



Scotland's in europe. but yeah, i say we band together and blame America.


----------



## Mussels (May 3, 2009)

kaneda said:


> Scotland's in europe. but yeah, i say we band together and blame America.



america is too easy a target. no challenge.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 3, 2009)

ok then the ozzies - damn drunk yobs


----------



## Mussels (May 3, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> ok then the ozzies - damn drunk yobs



Britain: the only empire to have given its prisoners a better country than its own people. thanks guys!


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 3, 2009)

damn right. we did a fine job too


----------



## Gam'ster (May 3, 2009)

erocker said:


> I'd rather see Intel pull out of the EU than pay them. .



Too much money involved even after the fine. Also how long do you think these companys that " pull " out would last without the investment and customer base that the EU generates ?.

But as i have said before the EU is a load of rubbish and is just after money as per. No real leadership just beaurocrats getting to much money for very little work and even less concern in his policys and actions for the working class man.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 3, 2009)

> Don't be one of those sorry kids that eats this kind of BS... it's really sad when people do that! I've heard a enough that AMD dies, goes bankrupt, gets bought, goes tits-up or gets blown up because of financial problems in the last 8 or so years... so far, they are pushing products that a lot of us can afford and are glad it's still here to make a difference.



well im not "one of those kids." i really like amd products, however recently their stock has been downgraded to "junk" status. LOL. so unfortunately that is not a good sign. also, investment researchers believe that by 2011 AMD will have to stop competing with intel in order to survive. that may mean they stop making desktop chips and stick with graphics and maybe do umpc chips. who knows.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 3, 2009)

Gam'ster said:


> Too much money involved even after the fine. Also how long do you think these companys that " pull " out would last without the investment and customer base that the EU generates ?.
> 
> But as i have said before the EU is a load of rubbish and is just after money as per. No real leadership just beaurocrats getting to much money for very little work and even less concern in his policys and actions for the working class man.


Actually I don't think it would be much different.  Intel would just close their customer support/offices in the EU and move product through OEM channels (that is, Intel is not a business EU has direct jurisdiction over).  The EU would basically have to make Intel products contraband and/or apply a tariff to their products in order to have any major impact.  In which case, Intel would have to downsize or start a EU division to make them happy.


----------



## Gam'ster (May 3, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The EU would basically have to make Intel products contraband and/or apply a tariff to their products in order to have any major impact.  In which case, Intel would have to *downsize* or start a EU division to make them happy.



Thats very true FordGT, But i dont think Dowsize is even in Mr Otellini's vocabulary. Even after a hefty fine such as this i dont think it would deter intel or microsoft from continuing operations in the EU or anyother state it is being investigated in, As always with large multi-national companys a certain amount of cash is set asside for situations like this or similar due to public and governmental exposure there is always a risk, Especially if they are found guilty then at some level they knew it would be discovered. 
The profits and the major public product exposure they have far outweighs any fine the EU in its wisdom can dish out. Ok a lot of what we are saying here is specualtion as we dont know the particulars of the case but imo i doubt it would ever come to that. Im not arguing the point just stating my opinion, a lot of what is said in situations like this is misread its not my intention to flame .


----------



## TreadR (May 3, 2009)

Morgoth said:


> idiot


Keep it real, boy! :shadedshu




newtekie1 said:


> It is perfectly fair...


No, it's not! It's a discriminatory action any day unless courts say so!



newtekie1 said:


> It is competition, if AMD wants to compete, they need to offer their products to the companies at competitive prices.


Haha... first, they're not ideas, they're observations... second, you seem to have an issue keeping track of what the issue is. To put it plain, you can't talk about competition when Intel as the bigger company that has more-demanded products (was it 80% or 70% of the market) *bribes* resellers and OEMs not to buy AMD products. In fact, it amazes me that Intel is shit scared of a 20% market company! That shows what? AMD has potential and value. If not, Intel would have stuck to fair-business.



newtekie1 said:


> The NF200 thing didn't come up till about half way through the ordeal.



I like it when people are wrong and blatantly deny it!
I don't want to write long stories so I'll make a short "sketch"...

nVidia wanted true QPI, true... for free? *NO!* Not for free, but for a license *FEE* as they did with the Core platform and as it should be in a business world.
Did Intel accept? no!... and yes, they were entitled not to.
Why they didn't? Because they've seen QPI as a way of *LEVERAGE*! You know what that action is called in legal terms? *EXTORTION!*
What to leverage?... Well, what did Intel *LACK* in the desktop market that would appeal to so many users? Common, take a guess! It would improve their position in a critical market, that's for sure!
The answer is SLI! ... on an already CrossFireX enabled product! What would a gamer want more than a full-option-mainboard?!?!

You want to know why you're worng... not misinformed, we've been there and you wanted to argue, but plain wrong?
The following... all of them!

If Intel was in a deal with nVidia regarding the Nehalem chipset license, which NV never got since they were legally threatened by Intel, stating they don't have the right to produce such chipsets... how the heck can you expect NV to bring such controversial products on the market?... since you've wondered why you haven't seen any nVidia made Nehalem chipsets you've implied nVidia has that right.

And the NF200 thing didn't came up, it was NO next big idea, as you've implied which is also a wrong... it's an OLD chip, which is available to any mainboard manufacturer, and if Intel wanted SLI they would have had to increase the price of their motherboards which already costs more than it's worth... thus they devised a cunning plan of extorting nVidia.  Sounds malefic... 

And you keep on babbling about i7's amazing launch time... did you've missed the news that it didn't had such a great launch or what?... the i7 launch wasn't so important and seeing how NVISION is the place where nVidia likes to show off... the bad thing was that the 09 edition was scraped, but it didn't matter as they didn't had anything new to present anyway!



newtekie1 said:


> This is finally when nVidia gave up on having one of their chips on every SLi board, and finally just allowed manufacturers to qualify the board for SLi by simply paying a small licensing fee and sending nVidia samples for SLi qualification.


Caved?... LOL ... right!... In the recent presentation of NV, the marketing director Tom Petersen said that a basic C2D in SLI is enough or even better compared to a single vga i7 setup as to what games concern! Not only that, but it's also cheaper! Wouldn't that be contradictory? Why license SLI for Nehalem when you can counsel users what to buy, and not only that, but tell the that they can do it cheaper too!

If gamers will be limited to using AMD CPU's in the future... they WILL use AMD CPU's in the future because as great as Nehalem and i7 are, a GTX300 will always be better!

So I don't see why they "caved"! What I see was *FRAUD*... in a matter of speaking!
Technically, I cant say that such practices are legal, but by using QPI as a leverage.. they might have crossed the legal fine line.

I see you like to spin things up to prove a point and that is a waste of my time... so I'll be making my last comment to you, cause it's pointless arguing with a guy that contradicts himself. What I mean:


> twilyth said:
> 
> 
> > *firms without substantial market power have tended to be allowed to engage in exclusive dealing agreements, whereas exclusive dealing agreements on the part of "dominant" firms have tended to be curtailed (see verb paragraph 3.)*
> ...


From my point of view... that's exactly why your families business are allowed to do that and why large corporations like Intel are not!



Thank you *twilyth*!


----------



## kaneda (May 3, 2009)

Mussels said:


> Britain: the only empire to have given its prisoners a better country than its own people. thanks guys!



Here here. to bad its a shadow of its former glory


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 3, 2009)

kaneda said:


> Here here. to bad its a shadow of its former glory



We gave so much to the world


----------



## twilyth (May 4, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> We gave so much to the world



Take comfort in the fact that English is the Latin of the modern age.  Although in a few more decades I'm betting on Chinese.  Probably some bastardized amalgam - like in Bladerunner.


----------



## ghost101 (May 4, 2009)

e6600 said:


> anti competitive?
> *if anything the EU promotes competition... why do you think they are trying to stop an intel monopoly?*
> without amd, intel would be sitting on $500 multi core P4's at 6ghz LOL



Yeh I'm agreeing with you  Investigating anticompetitive behaviour surely means that you promote competitive behaviour? I think you misread my post.


----------



## captainskyhawk (May 4, 2009)

twilyth said:


> Take comfort in the fact that English is the Latin of the modern age.  Although in a few more decades I'm betting on Chinese.  Probably some bastardized amalgam - like in Bladerunner.



English is easy to learn, and even latin is easier than chinese, there's no way it can be widely adopted, the chinese speak it and that's it and that's the way it's been for thousands of years


----------



## DaedalusHelios (May 4, 2009)

captainskyhawk said:


> English is easy to learn, and even latin is easier than chinese, there's no way it can be widely adopted, the chinese speak it and that's it and that's the way it's been for thousands of years



There is more than one type of chinese. Also the language is tone based which makes it even harder to learn.


----------



## Mussels (May 4, 2009)

the only way english will be replaced with another language, is if the english speaking countries are taken over in time of war and all media with english is destroyed.

Any other way, the large amount of books, music and movies will ensure that the english language remains dominant.

P.S my asian mushroom speaks english anyway.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 4, 2009)

LMAO!


Mussels said:


> the only way english will be replaced with another language, is if the english speaking countries are taken over in time of war and all media with english is destroyed.
> 
> Any other way, the large amount of books, music and movies will ensure that the english language remains dominant.
> 
> P.S my asian mushroom speaks english anyway.


----------



## Triprift (May 4, 2009)

I will say one thing while i agree with the fact that Intel are wrong and deserve to get fined for there practices it pisses me off that Amd are potrayed as the ultimate good guys who are up against the evil Intel. When infact there just as ruthless and most likely do there own soddy bussiness practices but because of there size are not noticed.


----------



## Tyr.1358 (May 4, 2009)

shiny_red_cobra said:


> I think this is pocket change for Intel though, they made billions with their Core 2 line of CPUs.



Yeah, they did make a lot of money.  I think that a better way to look at the damage done by a fine like that is to compare it to their earnings.  Look at this: http://www.intc.com/results.cfm?Quarter=&Year=2008

Last year they made 8.2 billion dollars.  A billion euro fine would come out to 1.33 billion U.S. tender (according to google).  That isn't exactly a slap on the wrist; that is 16% of their earnings.  That is extreme compared to Microsoft's fines.  Look at this: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx

Microsoft made 16.37 billion dollars.  They got fined 1.4 billion.  That is only 8.5% of their annual earnings.  If you look at it objectively, that makes Intel's fine TWICE as heavy as the one imparted on Microsoft.

Not "pocket change" at all.  Not one bit.  What is even worse, is what happens to the company's creditors when the stock starts to drop?  http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:INTC

Intel will have to raise prices to make back that lost 16%, PLUS their projected growth earnings for next year.  Let's say their annual growth is 7%.  That means that they need to recoup 23% of 8.2 billion dollars.  That is 1.88 billion dollars.  1.88 billion divided by how ever many chips they ship equals the fallout cost to the consumer.  Even if they ship 20 million chips in a year, that comes out to $90 extra that we have to pay.  And that is just to keep the investors on board with projected growth, never mind actually being profitable and making back the lost cash.

If this fine actually gets levied against Intel, the fallout will suck so bad for consumers.  Sure, theoretically it gives AMD a better price edge, but realistically all it does is piss off OEM vendors.  Imagine the look on Dell's face (no pun intended) when they realize that they have to find a way to subsidize _another_ $90 off of every model, out of thin air.

Unless I am totally missing something . . .


----------



## newtekie1 (May 4, 2009)

Mussels said:


> theres a difference between offering a lower/more competetive price, and only offering that lower price to people who dont sell any competing products.



Yes there is a difference, however again there is nothing stopping Company A from offering the same deals as company X, it is called competition.  Deals like this happen daily in the business world.


----------



## Mussels (May 4, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes there is a difference, however again there is nothing stopping Company A from offering the same deals as company X, it is called competition.  Deals like this happen daily in the business world.



In fact, there is something against it called "laws". They dont mean much here on the internet, but they sure do in the business world.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 4, 2009)

TreadR said:


> No, it's not! It's a discriminatory action any day unless courts say so!



Discrimination has nothing to do with it.  What Intel did was fair business, there was nothing stopping AMD from doing the same thing.  In fact I'm sure they did, the EU just isn't doing anything about it.



TreadR said:


> Haha... first, they're not ideas, they're observations... second, you seem to have an issue keeping track of what the issue is. To put it plain, you can't talk about competition when Intel as the bigger company that has more-demanded products (was it 80% or 70% of the market) *bribes* resellers and OEMs not to buy AMD products. In fact, it amazes me that Intel is shit scared of a 20% market company! That shows what? AMD has potential and value. If not, Intel would have stuck to fair-business.



I know it is an argument of symantics, but Intel was not bribing anyone.  Giving exclusivity discounts is different than bribes.  Intel wasn't paying companies to not use AMD, Intel just wasn't charging as much to companies that didn't use AMD(and Via and IBM). Deals like this drive competition.



TreadR said:


> I like it when people are wrong and blatantly deny it!
> I don't want to write long stories so I'll make a short "sketch"...



I love it when people are wrong, don't know what they are talking about, then try to act like a badass while still being wrong.



TreadR said:


> nVidia wanted true QPI, true... for free? *NO!* Not for free, but for a license *FEE* as they did with the Core platform and as it should be in a business world.
> 
> Did Intel accept? no!... and yes, they were entitled not to.



If you read here, you will see that at first nVidia wanted to produce the chipset under their current licence, giving them QPI for free.




TreadR said:


> Why they didn't? Because they've seen QPI as a way of *LEVERAGE*! You know what that action is called in legal terms? *EXTORTION!*



Not wanting to give away technology that you have spent millions developing to another company so they can produce a competing product is *far* from extortion.



TreadR said:


> What to leverage?... Well, what did Intel *LACK* in the desktop market that would appeal to so many users? Common, take a guess! It would improve their position in a critical market, that's for sure!
> The answer is SLI! ... on an already CrossFireX enabled product! What would a gamer want more than a full-option-mainboard?!?!



I don't doubt that getting SLi for Intel Chipsets wasn't one of the reasons that Intel held up licensing talks as long as possible.



TreadR said:


> You want to know why you're worng... not misinformed, we've been there and you wanted to argue, but plain wrong?
> The following... all of them!



I'm not wrong, you are.  Why are you wrong, because you are basing your speculation and accusations on a very bad memory of how things happened.



TreadR said:


> If Intel was in a deal with nVidia regarding the Nehalem chipset license, which NV never got since they were legally threatened by Intel, stating they don't have the right to produce such chipsets...
> how the heck can you expect NV to bring such controversial products on the market?... since you've wondered why you haven't seen any nVidia made Nehalem chipsets you've implied nVidia has that right.



Again, if you remembered correctly, they were not in talks at first, nVidia wanted to use QPI to make Nehalem chipsets for free under their current license with Intel.  Intel had to take them to court to stop that.  Only then did Intel and nVidia enter into negotiations for licensing.

Really?  They never got it... http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/08/29/nvidia-has-a-qpi-license/1

Who's wrong here again?




TreadR said:


> And the NF200 thing didn't came up, it was NO next big idea, as you've implied which is also a wrong... it's an OLD chip, which is available to any mainboard manufacturer, and if Intel wanted SLI they would have had to increase the price of their motherboards which already costs more than it's worth... thus they devised a cunning plan of extorting nVidia.  Sounds malefic...



If you read here, after nVidia realized that they would not be able to get an i7 chipset out for launch due to not having the proper licensing, they decided the next best thing would be to have motherboard manufacturers include the NF200 to enable SLi.

You are right in one respect, in that motherboard manufacturers(not Intel as you claim) did not want to increase the price of their already too expensive motherboards.  It was the motherboard manufacturers that stopped nVidia here, not Intel.



TreadR said:


> And you keep on babbling about i7's amazing launch time... did you've missed the news that it didn't had such a great launch or what?... the i7 launch wasn't so important and seeing how NVISION is the place where nVidia likes to show off... the bad thing was that the 09 edition was scraped, but it didn't matter as they didn't had anything new to present anyway!



It not having a great launch has nothing to do with the discussion, you are the first to bring that up.  The issue was the time of the launch, and by the time nVidia had a license to  QPI, it did not have enough time to produce a chipset for the i7.  Which is why they had rely on their backup plans to get SLi on i7.




TreadR said:


> Caved?... LOL ... right!... In the recent presentation of NV, the marketing director Tom Petersen said that a basic C2D in SLI is enough or even better compared to a single vga i7 setup as to what games concern! Not only that, but it's also cheaper! Wouldn't that be contradictory? Why license SLI for Nehalem when you can counsel users what to buy, and not only that, but tell the that they can do it cheaper too!



Not really, as the people running i7 setups are the people that must have high end.  It was extremely important for nVidia to have SLi available for i7 when it launched.  Otherwise, all the people buying the i7 at launch would be using ATi cards, and nVidia would have lost a huge amount of money.  "Good enough" isn't something most i7 users are used to using as a standard for performance.



TreadR said:


> If gamers will be limited to using AMD CPU's in the future... they WILL use AMD CPU's in the future because as great as Nehalem and i7 are, a GTX300 will always be better!



Now you've lost me...CPUs are not GPUs...why are you comparing them...



TreadR said:


> So I don't see why they "caved"! What I see was *FRAUD*... in a matter of speaking!
> Technically, I cant say that such practices are legal, but by using QPI as a leverage.. they might have crossed the legal fine line.



I've explained why they had to cave and enable SLi natively for the x58 chipset.  Intel only had a small hand in it when they held up nVidia on making a true i7 chipset.  There are several things that cost nVidia time, and time was the deciding factor:

1.) nVidia's assumption that their old licences applied to the new i7 platform.(This was nVidia's fault)
2.) Negotiations between Intel and nVidia for a new license that covers the i7 platform, and any other platforms with an IMC.(You can argue this was partially Intel's fault, in that they could have been unreasonable in an effort to slow down negotiations, but without actually being at the negotiation, it would be nothing more than speculation.)
3.) The motherboard makers telling nVidia they wouldn't use the nf200 chip due to costs.(This is nVidia's fault, nVidia should have come up with something that didn't cost others more money)

All of these things cost nVidia time, time they didn't have as the i7 launch was approaching quickly and they needed an SLi solution by launch.  So they had to cave and allow SLi on the x58 chipset without an NF200 chip.



TreadR said:


> I see you like to spin things up to prove a point and that is a waste of my time... so I'll be making my last comment to you, cause it's pointless arguing with a guy that contradicts himself. What I mean:



I see you like to piece together your inaccurate remembering of the facts to form a bunch of speculation, to accuse a company you don't like of things they did not do.

And I never contradicted myself, you just fail at reading and comprehension, obviously.[/QUOTE]


----------



## newtekie1 (May 4, 2009)

Mussels said:


> In fact, there is something against it called "laws". They dont mean much here on the internet, but they sure do in the business world.



Unfortunately, in the business world they mean little also.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 4, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> well im not "one of those kids." i really like amd products, however recently their stock has been downgraded to "junk" status. LOL. so unfortunately that is not a good sign. also, investment researchers believe that by 2011 AMD will have to stop competing with intel in order to survive. that may mean they stop making desktop chips and stick with graphics and maybe do umpc chips. who knows.



a quick correction amd's stock has not been downgraded. infact they are far from being downgraded. in order to maintain their status on nyse they have to keey at least 100mil stock value... they're worth 2.8 bil by current stock price and are working their way up (as is intel from their lows) and investors show their approval by buyign stocks, disapproval by selling. currently they're buying. overall intc, nvda, and amd are all working their way up from their lows, I just can't see how amd would have been downgraded during an upswing


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 4, 2009)

yogurt_21 said:


> a quick correction amd's stock has not been downgraded. infact they are far from being downgraded. in order to maintain their status on nyse they have to keey at least 100mil stock value... they're worth 2.8 bil by current stock price and are working their way up (as is intel from their lows) and investors show their approval by buyign stocks, disapproval by selling. currently they're buying. overall intc, nvda, and amd are all working their way up from their lows, I just can't see how amd would have been downgraded during an upswing



i was mistaken. it is their credit rating that has been downgraded to junk status. and with a junk credit rating they cant borrow money to fufill their longterm investment strategy. also, the just reported another large loss but their stock is up, according to market reports, because their sales are up. you can thank the recession for that as people want to cut costs.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (May 4, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i was mistaken. it is their credit rating that has been downgraded to junk status. and with a junk credit rating they cant borrow money to fufill their longterm investment strategy. also, the just reported another large loss but their stock is up, according to market reports, because their sales are up. you can thank the recession for that as people want to cut costs.



It was so bad that the German government had to loan them money to keep fabs open in Germany. It was in a Tom's hardware article a year ago.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 4, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> It was so bad that the German government had to loan them money to keep fabs open in Germany. It was in a Tom's hardware article a year ago.



yup. i mentioned this in an earlier post. people always seem to think that the government is always working for the little guy...  enter obama...


----------



## Swansen (May 5, 2009)

Hard to say anything over what TK and Mussells have already said, but its sad that in the US, nothing is done... They promote and let run amuck huge corporations because they are run by huge corporations... and in turn, these huge corporations run peoples lives.  I'm not sure if i agree with the penalty.. taking away their money is a really weird and odd punishment, but i guess what do you do.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (May 5, 2009)

Swansen said:


> I'm not sure if i agree with the penalty.. taking away their money is a really weird and odd punishment, but i guess what do you do.



Free i7 raffles? Complements of Intel?


----------



## smuggler (May 5, 2009)

Quite an argument going around about anti-competition law. Well not living in EU, but I should say that there is nothşng wrong with what they did and 1 or 2 billion € fines is not much when the effects of Intel's actions are calculated. 

EU makes more than 20 % of world market and taking into account the period Intel's anti-competitive actions continued it is just small enough like to get pinched by its mama.

And why is it always big companies are fined in competition cases? Well  this is microeconomics 101 issue. If a company is dominant seller in any market, it has the power to set the price. If there is a small competitor this big company I can kill the small company A in two ways 1- It can cut prices untşl the company A cannot keep up 2- it can make vertical agreements to prevent buyers to buy from company A. So Intel was abusing its market dominance ( 80 % market share is market dominance wherever you are in the world). 

EU fines smaller companies (smaller means not a monopoly but a oligopoly in the market) for making horizontal arrangements like fixing prices to maximize profit but you never here them because they are in markets not appealing as much as technology (bitumen, glass, chemicals etc)


----------



## Mussels (May 5, 2009)

As smuggler is hinting at, the laws are in place to prevent big business A from making business' B C D E and through to Z, kaput.

If intel kept this price fixing up, AMD would go out of business and then there would be NO competition in the CPU market. see how much your chips cost then, without AMD to keep intel competitive.


----------



## TreadR (May 5, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> If you read here, you will see that at first nVidia wanted to produce the chipset under their current licence, giving them QPI for free.



_"the change in design means the old license doesn't apply, Intel believes"_ (bit-tech)
That wasn't speculated in the cross-license... Intel made it up and frankly I don't give a flying f. how much money Intel put in QPI, so stop giving this argument... it makes you look lame.

If it would have been specified in the license NV was given that it's valid only for Core platform, stating that clearly, would have given Intel the right to challenge it. Twisting the meaning that it's new and it doesn't apply... isn't much of a proof.

In fact, there was no way a _four-year-old cross license agreement_ (in march 2009) could have specified a 2007 rumored tech to make Intel's point valid!

"though NVIDIA says it has been trying to resolve the problem with Intel in a "fair and reasonable manner" for more than a year." (electronista)
This is what I'm referring to the QPI-SLI cross-license issue.

Pity the fool that has no idea what a cross-license is.



newtekie1 said:


> Really?  They never got it... http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/08/29/nvidia-has-a-qpi-license/1
> 
> Who's wrong here again?



Sorry, I have to break the forum rules this time only... hopefully:
IDIOT!

And that's being sensible!

_"Intel claims that the statement given by Petersen was false because Intel believes that Nvidia doesn’t have a bus license for processors using an integrated memory controller._
That's why NV called it QPI in the article you've mentioned it!
Source (notice the date?): http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/27/nvidia-files-countersuit-against-intel/1

Basically, Intel gave them a license for Intel chipsets, without a clear statement that it's not covering future "different" chipsets and that is a mistake on Intel's part as they should have limited the licensing terms properly.

Besides, I feel sorry for you for trusting a MARKETING director. 




newtekie1 said:


> motherboard manufacturers(not Intel as you claim) did not want to increase the price of their already too expensive motherboards.  It was the motherboard manufacturers that stopped nVidia here, not Intel.


Right... Intel didn't want a 100$ chip on their mainboards, no matter by who they were manufactured because it would have hurt their overall Nehalem sales. But yeah... an Intel fanboy like yourself, can state that.




newtekie1 said:


> Now you've lost me...CPUs are not GPUs...why are you comparing them...


I don't doubt your single-threaded neuron got lost! 

If NV won't be allowed to produce SLI QPI chipsets, as was stated on the more recent article on bit-tech, that would leave them with the only option to produce SLI chipsets for current gen platforms to stay in the chipset market... and the single viable platform is AMD.
I said "stay" because the articles alredy mention that NV has nothing to add to the QPI tech besides SLI.
Now, did you find yourself?




newtekie1 said:


> I see you like to piece together your inaccurate remembering of the facts to form a bunch of speculation, to accuse a company you don't like of things they did not do.
> 
> And I never contradicted myself, you just fail at reading and comprehension, obviously.



Yeah kid... just believe that if it makes yourself feel better. 

Some people pointed you were wrong... you're just suborn and want it to be your way.




Easy Rhino said:


> recently their stock has been downgraded to "junk" status. also, investment researchers believe that by 2011 AMD will have to stop competing with intel in order to survive. that may mean they stop making desktop chips and stick with graphics and maybe do umpc chips. who knows.



True, they are in a critical financial state... but it's not over and in order to continue they need to increase their market absorption rate. This means less profits through low prices for now but more clients for the future which will help to be more competitive and to get more money from.

Here's a piece of news regarding AMD's market share... for the better:
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/16855

Also I wouldn't say "always"... although I don't fully understand the part with obama.  but if it's related to what *Swansen* said next, I think I understand.

*smuggler*, that's what people said already, *TheGuruStud* even gave up arguing... the arguments continue because of fbz that don't get what Intel did. Take a look at *newtekie1*... he was even given a proper explanation by *twilyth*, yet he still insists that Intel didn't do anything wrong.

I guess we're back in the ages of Sparta... who shouts the loudest and the longest makes the point.


----------



## crtecha (May 5, 2009)

1,000,000,000 EUR pshhhhhh pocket change for them


----------



## Mussels (May 5, 2009)

This threads getting pretty heated...


----------



## twilyth (May 5, 2009)

Tyr.1358 said:


> Last year they made 8.2 billion dollars.  A billion euro fine would come out to 1.33 billion U.S. tender (according to google).  That isn't exactly a slap on the wrist; that is 16% of their earnings.  That is extreme compared to Microsoft's fines.  Look at this: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx


For those of you saying this is nothing for intel, howabout you send ME 16% of your after tax earnings for the year.  After all, you won't even notice - right? 

If you don't hit companies that break the law with fines that actually hurt, then they will just incorporate those fines into their cost of doing business.

And Intel can't can't just raise their prices and pass it along since as of now at least they still have some competition.  So this is going to come out of their pockets of their share holders.

Intel should have realized that this type of an agreement would violate the law when they had a 80% market share.  While this sort of thing is tolerated when done by smaller companies, there should have been no doubt it would be tolerated in Intel's case.

Now let's just hope they get put in their place by the other countries investigating them.  Total fines of a few billion $$$ ought to bring the message home.


----------



## crtecha (May 5, 2009)

Greed sn a mofo.  I guess thats why they say you cant have it all.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2009)

twilyth said:


> Intel should have realized that this type of an agreement would violate the law when they had a 80% market share.  While this sort of thing is tolerated when done by smaller companies, there should have been no doubt it would be tolerated in Intel's case.


Innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (May 6, 2009)

twilyth said:


> For those of you saying this is nothing for intel, howabout you send ME 16% of your after tax earnings for the year.  After all, you won't even notice - right?



Yes, 16% of the average person's salary would be a big deal, however, Would Bill Gate's lifestyle be affected if 16% of his income was taken away? Prolly not. When you are talking about billions and billions of dollars, chances are it would not make/break Intel or affect them as much as an average person. In other words would you perhaps see some slowdowns in R&D... sure... would Intel shut down... no.... The effect that such a fine would have on Intel is totally dependent on how much of those profits they were putting back into the company.


----------



## Tyr.1358 (May 6, 2009)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> Yes, 16% of the average person's salary would be a big deal, however, Would Bill Gate's lifestyle be affected if 16% of his income was taken away? Prolly not.


No offense, but who are you to say that Bill Gate's lifestyle would not be affected if 16% of his income was suddenly levied into a fine?  Just because his earnings are larger than the average median income does not mean that his 16% is any less important than your 16%.  The United States Census Bureau recommends that a mortgage represents 36% of your income.  Food is 12%, Auto 12%, and the rest is divided into 5% slots for insurance, debt, investment etc.  I guess the point is that he has significantly higher bills than someone with a median income, and it is immature to believe that his NSI (net spendable income) is worth less to him (because the figure is larger) than it would be to _you_.





ArmoredCavalry said:


> When you are talking about billions and billions of dollars, chances are it would not make/break Intel or affect them as much as an average person. In other words would you perhaps see some slowdowns in R&D... sure... would Intel shut down... no....


The same thing goes for Intel.  If you think that there won't be any serious repercussions for them on the basis that they have the same operating cost as any other, smaller, company; then I might just call you ignorant.  Intel has crazy operating costs to deal with compared to any other company with a smaller budget.


ArmoredCavalry said:


> The effect that such a fine would have on Intel is totally dependent on how much of those profits they were putting back into the company.


Profits are not just expendable cash that you can throw around like your last paycheck of the month after your bills are payed.  Intel invests their earnings in stock growth, R&D, and next year's budget.  Their profits are also put back into the local economies to promote growth in their investment sectors: http://www.intel.com/community/.  For example, they have a small facility in Marlborough, MA.  I live not to far from there, and I can tell you that the entire town completely relies on regular support from Intel to stay afloat.  They support a local trade school and promote growth throughout the entire industrial park.  A good analogy would be how Starrett Tool in Athol, MA (pretty much a empty shell of the former company now) completely bankrupted the entire county when it went out of business last decade.


twilyth said:


> Intel can't can't just raise their prices and pass it along since as of now at least they still have some competition.  So this is going to come out of their pockets of their share holders.


Maybe I can break this down a little more.  Private companies sell a product to make money.  Public companies make money to sell a product.  They are opposites, OK?  The problem is that the product that public companies make is stock value.

Companies make money by selling things.  Companies sell a product at a price that covers their operating costs.  Operating costs encase many things, including wages, taxes, electric bills, shipping costs, insurance, office supplies, company cookouts etc.  So it is safe to say that any company will strive to sell their product.  That is their goal, to create a large gap between operating costs and the revenue stream created by their product.

Intel is on the stock market.  Their product is stock, and anything that needs to be done to maintain that stock value can be legally considered an operating cost.  Selling processors is just a way to increase stock value.  In a public company, the stockholders come first; that means that in order to maintain investor relations they have to maximize their stock value.  Microsoft, for example, sells stock.  They increase their stock value by making operating systems.  Coca-Cola increases their stock value by making beverages.  Comcast increases their stock (advertising) value by selling groups of people who watch TV.

To re-quote:


twilyth said:


> Intel can't can't just raise their prices and pass it along since as of now at least they still have some competition.  So this is going to come out of their pockets of their share holders.


The first thing Intel will do is raise their prices, because that is how you cover operating costs.  <- You see that sentence right there? Damn that feels good.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (May 6, 2009)

Tyr.1358 said:


> No offense, but who are you to say that Bill Gate's lifestyle would not be affected if 16% of his income was suddenly levied into a fine?  Just because his earnings are larger than the average median income does not mean that his 16% is any less important than your 16%.  The United States Census Bureau recommends that a mortgage represents 36% of your income.  Food is 12%, Auto 12%, and the rest is divided into 5% slots for insurance, debt, investment etc.  I guess the point is that he has significantly higher bills than someone with a median income, and it is immature to believe that his NSI (net spendable income) is worth less to him (because the figure is larger) than it would be to _you_



Are you joking? You really think that Bill Gate's lifestyle would be different if he had 16% less income??? You realize this is the Bill Gates of Microsoft we are talking about right?

Also, the stats you are stating are AVERAGES. You think Bill Gates is paying *36%* of his income towards a mortgage!? You realize how expensive his house would have to be if that were true??? If you think Bill Gates is even paying a mortgage at all, you need to wakeup. *No offense*  Also, if Bill Gates is paying *12%* of his income towards his food bill, then I would like to know what is he eating... What, is he having baby seal steaks flown in daily from Alaska?! You would be hard pressed to spend more than a million dollars everyday on food... 

Also, I never said whether I think it is *fair, or right* that Intel is being fined, I am simply pointing out that there is no way this will make Intel go out of business, or anything that drastic.


----------



## Tyr.1358 (May 6, 2009)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> Are you joking? You really think that Bill Gate's lifestyle would be different if he had 16% less income??? You realize this is the Bill Gates of Microsoft we are talking about right?
> 
> Also, the stats you are stating are AVERAGES. You think Bill Gates is paying *36%* of his income towards a mortgage!? You realize how expensive his house would have to be if that were true??? If you think Bill Gates is even paying a mortgage at all, you need to wakeup. *No offense*



Gates' fortress is valued at 147 million dollars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates%27_house  His estate is larger than most college campuses, and it's construction which started in 1988 was financed.  There are a few small aerial photos here: [url]http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/2008/01/02/bill-gates-house/[/URL]



ArmoredCavalry said:


> Also, if Bill Gates is paying *12%* of his income towards his food bill, then I would like to know what is he eating... What, is he having baby seal steaks flown in daily from Alaska?! You would be hard pressed to spend more than a million dollars everyday on food...



$500k minus taxes =$360,331 x 12%= $43239.72 / 360 days = $120.11 a day for food.  A bit off-topic, but my weekly grocery bill is about $90.

Wake up call: Bill Gates' income is actually small, the 45 billion dollar figure from forbes (or wherever people get it) is an _*estimation*_ of his net worth, which is based on the stocks he holds.  He doesn't actually make a lot of money, sad but true.  He owns billions of dollars of stock, however.  If he needs money for things then he sells stock.  Here is his income before the vista flop: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/543343.html

Now, the taxes on his house alone are about a million dollars a year.  He pays his bills by selling stock, he doesn't actually have a large income to cover his bills.  That 500k a year goes towards his mercedes (or whatever he drives), the electric bill, and food.  *Just like you.*  What is more important to notice, is that his 500k a year is before taxes.  After taxes his income comes out to $360,331.

And while we are at it, the Gates Foundation doesn't donate money, they donate stock.  The charity organization can then cash in that stock.



ArmoredCavalry said:


> Also, I never said whether I think it is *fair, or right* that Intel is being fined, I am simply pointing out that there is no way this will make Intel go out of business, or anything that drastic.



In the USA, monopolies are disbanded by dividing the one large conglomerate into smaller independent companies.  You can't do that with Intel because Intel does one thing: they sell processors.  Sure, you could divide up the chipset business, but that wouldn't change anything.  Even if you tried to make two smaller companies that sell processors out of Intel, how do you divide up the R&D?  Who gets what technologies?  I believe that is why our government hasn't stepped in, because there isn't a whole lot they can do.

The EU solves this with a fine, but at what costs?  Intel Corporation is not obligated to pay fines that are issued outside of America, where the company is based.  The money will have to come from their European division/sector/sub company.  That will bankrupt that market.  What is worse, is the price hikes we worked out in my earlier post will be levied against the European market.  You can't just slide money around from one company to another to cover costs.  If that were possible then Ford Europe would have taken over Ford USA by now (a great idea actually).

I suppose they could use the USA company to buy stock in the Euro market, which is called a "buyback".  This would give the Euro sector enough money to cover the fine.  The problem is that they would have to dilute the shareholder's earnings in the USA in order to buy the stock.  This violates their goal, so it won't happen.

The Euro sector will either go bankrupt, or be bought out/restructured.


----------



## twilyth (May 6, 2009)

Tyr.1358 said:


> To re-quote:
> 
> The first thing Intel will do is raise their prices, because that is how you cover operating costs.  <- You see that sentence right there? Damn that feels good.



I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.  Intel is not yet a monopoly, therefore any increase in price means a decrease in sales - ceteris paribus.  However Intel has very high fixed operating costs.  So any decrease in sales pretty much comes out of the bottom line.  

Personally, I hope Intel does raise prices.  It will give AMD that much more of an advantage.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (May 6, 2009)

Tyr.1358 said:


> Gates' fortress is valued at 147 million dollars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates%27_house  His estate is larger than most college campuses, and it's construction which started in 1988 was financed.  There are a few small aerial photos here: [url]http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/2008/01/02/bill-gates-house/[/URL]
> 
> $500k minus taxes =$360,331 x 12%= $43239.72 / 360 days = $120.11 a day for food.  A bit off-topic, but my weekly grocery bill is about $90.
> 
> Wake up call: Bill Gates' income is actually small, the 45 billion dollar figure from forbes (or wherever people get it) is an _*estimation*_ of his net worth, which is based on the stocks he holds.  He doesn't actually make a lot of money, sad but true.  He owns billions of dollars of stock, however.  If he needs money for things then he sells stock.  Here is his income before the vista flop: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/543343.html



Yes, his "house" is huge and he OWNS IT. That is my point....

Also, you are pointing out his SALARY FROM MICROSOFT. Not his income...   Someone who has a net worth as high as Bill Gates is obviously going to have lots of investments making lots of money. You think that Bill Gates could have that house if he was making only 500k a year, dream on. 

It comes down to this, do you really think (as in your opinion) that Bill Gates is spending more than 83% of his *yearly income (not salary)* on goods/services?

/end total thread derailment


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (May 8, 2009)

god the lawyers always interfere why? it'll just be passed on to the customers anyway in the form of higher prices i personally beleive we all have a choice as to which processor we buy nobody forces us to pay intel's excessive prices ,god knows theirs enough of e'm to choose from i'll more than like'ly be getting a i7 simply cause all my amd processors have had problems ,plus as my mate says it's about time ya bought a new computer and put that ancient thing out for the bin men


----------



## twilyth (May 8, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> god the lawyers always interfere why? it'll just be passed on to the customers anyway in the form of higher prices i personally beleive we all have a choice as to which processor we buy nobody forces us to pay intel's excessive prices ,god knows theirs enough of e'm to choose from i'll more than like'ly be getting a i7 simply cause all my amd processors have had problems ,plus as my mate says it's about time ya bought a new computer and put that ancient thing out for the bin men


I was thinking about a 920 myself, but and AMD 940 on an AM2+ board with low CAS DDR2 is probably bigger bang for your buck.

If Intel does raise prices, AMD will be looking pretty sweet to a lot of end users.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 8, 2009)

Intel can very easily discourage AMD chips by disallowing an Intel badge to be affixed to PCs and by refusing to pay for any advertisements for the OEM - The last thing Dell and HP would want is to pick up the whole tab for their commercials, and not have the 'Intel Inside' music chime in at the end of it. I've never seen a PC advertised on TV that bragged about using an AMD chip, and I bet it's because AMD cannot afford to pay for it.

Now I am waiting for Apple to be brought to the chopping block of the great EU - As locked down as they keep their platform I am sure they've stepped on a lot of toes besides M$


----------

